Mediating Role of Faculty Staff’s Innovative Behavior on the Relationship Between Corporate Reputation and Academic Intellectual Capital: A Study at Marmara University

Öz

The aims of this study are to examine the relationship between a university’s levels of corporate reputation and academic intellectual capital based on the perceptions of the students studying at Marmara University and to reveal whether the perceived innovative behaviors of the faculty staff have a mediating role in this relationship. The research participants consist of 458 undergraduate students studying at Marmara University in the 2021 Spring semester who were selected using the stratified sampling method based on the number of students per faculty. This quantitative study was carried out using structural equation modeling as well as the RepTrak Scale for measuring the participants’ perceptions regarding corporate reputation, the Innovative Work Behavior Scale for measuring their perceptions regarding the faculty’s innovative behaviors, and the Academic Intellectual Capital Scale for measuring participants’ perceptions regarding Marmara University’s level of academic intellectual capital. The data were analyzed using the programming language R (ver. 4.1.2) and the software RStudio (ver. 2021.09.1, build 372). Based on the study results of the study, faculty members’ innovative behaviors have been determined to have a mediating role on the relationship between Marmara University’s levels of corporate reputation and academic intellectual capital.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Corporate reputation
• innovative behavior
• academic intellectual capital
• intellectual capital
• higher education

Kurumsal İtibar ve Akademik Entelektüel Sermaye Arasındaki İlişkide Öğretim Elemanlarının Yenilikçi Davranışlarının Aracı Rolü: Marmara Üniversitesinde Bir Araştırma

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Marmara Üniversitesi'nde öğrenim gören öğrencilerin algılarına dayalı olarak üniversitenin kurumsal itibarı ile üniversitenin akademik entelektüel sermaye düzeyi arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek, öğretim elemanlarının algılanan yenilikçi davranışlarının bu ilişkide aracılık rolü olup olmadığını ortaya çıkarmaktır. Araştırmanın katılımcıları Marmara Üniversitesinde 2020-2021 öğretim yılı bahar döneminde öğrenim gören öğrenciler arasından fakülte/yüksekokul öğrenci sayılarına göre tabakalı örnekleme yöntemiyle belirlenen 458 lisans öğrencisinden oluşmaktadır. Yapısal eşitlik modeli ile gerçekleştirilen bu nicel çalışmanın katılımcılarının kurumsal itibara ilişkin algılarını ölçmek için RepTrak Ölçeği, öğretim elemanlarının algılanan yenilikçi davranışlarını ölçmek için Yenilikçi Davranış Ölçeği ve katılımcıların Marmara Üniversitesinin sahip olduğu akademik entelektüel sermaye düzeyine ilişkin algılarını ölçmek için Akademik Entelektüel Sermaye ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizi R (versiyon 4.1.2) kullanılarak RStudio (versiyon 2021.09.1, build 372) ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda Marmara Üniversitesi'nin kurumsal itibarı ile akademik entelektüel sermayesi arasındaki ilişkide öğretim üyelerinin yenilikçi davranışlarının aracı role sahip olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurumsal itibar
• yenilikçi davranış
• akademik entelektüel sermaye
• entelektüel sermaye
• yükseköğretim

Kaynakça

1. Altındağ, Ö., Fidanbaş, Ö. ve İrdan, G. (2019). The impact of intellectual capital on innovation: A literature study. Business Management Dynamics, 8(12), 1–12.
2. Angliss, K. (2021). An alternative approach to measuring university reputation. Corporate Reputation Review. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-021-00110-y
3. Arsawan, I. W. E., Kariati, N. M., Prayustika, P. A. ve Wirga, I. W. (2019). Elucidating knowledge sharing on innovative work behavior: Multiperspective analysis. International Conference on Rural Development and Enterpreneurship 2019, 5(1), 670–686.
4. Aula, P. ve Heinonen, J. (2015). The reputable firm: How digitalization of communication is revolutionizing reputation management. Cham: Springer.
5. Awang, Z. (2012). Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphic. Shah Alam: Universiti Teknologi MARA Publication Centre (UPENA).
6. Boyd, B. K., Bergh, D. D. ve Ketchen, D. J. (2010). Reconsidering the reputation-performance relationship: A resource-based view. Journal of Management, 36(3), 588–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308328507
7. Brătianu, C. ve Pînzaru, F. (2015). Challenges for the university intellectual capital in the knowledge economy. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 3(4), 609–627.
8. Buranakul, S., Limnararat, S., Pithuncharurnlap, M. ve Sangmanee, W. (2016). The mediating role of innovative work behavior on the relationship between knowledge sharing behavior and innovation capability in Thailand Private University. 2016 Management and Innovation Technology International Conference, MITiCON 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITICON.2016.8025245

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Erkan Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. https://doi.org/10.14527/9789944919289
10. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.
11. Cheng, M. Y., Lin, J. Y., Hsiao, T. Y. ve Lin, T. W. (2010). Invested resource, competitive intellectual capital, and corporate performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(4), 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931011085623
12. Córcoles, Y. R. (2013). Intellectual capital management and reporting in european higher education institutions. Intangible Capital, 9(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.201
13. Coulson, J., Roberts, P. ve Taylor, I. (2011). University planning and architecture. University Planning and Architecture. Oxon: Routledge.
14. Cravens, K. S. ve Oliver, E. G. (2006). Employees: The key link to corporate reputation management. Business Horizons, 49(4), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2005.10.006
15. Çetin, M. (2013). Yükseköğretim yönetimi ve liderliği. Ankara: Nobel Akademi Yayıncılık.
16. Çetin, M., Akpolat, T. ve Özdemir, A. N. (2017). Okullarda entelektüel sermaye kullanımı ile okul yöneticilerinin yenilik yönetimi arasındaki ilişki. Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(13), 141–157.
17. Çetin, Ş. (2020). Kullanım alanlarına göre inovasyon yönetim ive temel sorunlar. M. Çetin ve İ. Karsantık (Ed.), İnovasyon yönetiminde stratejiler ve süreçler içinde (ss. 29–60). Ankara: Nobel.
18. Çimen, İ. ve Yücel, C. (2017). Yenilikçi davranış ölçeği (YDÖ): Türk kültürüne uyarlama çalışması. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 6(3), 365–381. https://doi.org/0.30703/cije.334136
19. Dalton, J. ve Croft, S. (2003). Managing corporate reputation. Londra: Thorogood.
20. Darroch, J. ve Mcnaughton, R. (2002). Examining the link between knowledge management practices and types of innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(3), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930210435570
21. de Jong, J. P. J. ve den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x
22. Del-Castillo-Feito, C., Blanco-González, A. ve González-Vázquez, E. (2019). The relationship between image and reputation in the Spanish public university. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 25(2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.01.001
23. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications. Los Angeles: Sage.
24. Doll, W. J., Xia, W. ve Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MS Quarterly, 18(4), 453–461.
25. el Hamdi, S., Abouabdellah, A. ve Oudani, M. (2019). Industry 4.0: Fundamentals and main challenges. 12th International Colloquium on Logistics and Supply Chain Management, LOGISTIQUA 2019 içinde (ss. 1–5). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/LOGISTIQUA.2019.8907280
26. Field, A., Miles, J. ve Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. Los Angeles: Sage.
27. Fombrun, C. J. (2018). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image (20th Anniv.). Harvard Business School Press.
28. Fombrun, C. J., Ponzi, L. J. ve Newburry, W. (2015). Stakeholder tracking and analysis: The RepTrak® System for measuring corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 18(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2014.21
29. Forza, C. ve Filippini, R. (1998). TQM impact on quality conformance and customer satisfaction: A causal model. International Journal of Production Economics, 55(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00007-3
30. Frare, A. B. ve Beuren, I. M. (2021). Effects of corporate reputation and social identity on innovative job performance. European Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2021-0071
31. Fritz, M. S. ve MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x
32. Greenspoon, P. J. ve Saklofske, D. H. (1998). Confirmatory factor analysis of the multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(5), 965–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00115-9
33. Gürbüz, S. (2019). Sosyal bilimlerde aracı, düzenleyici ve durumsal etki analizleri. Ankara: Seçkin Akademik ve Mesleki Yayınlar.
34. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. ve Anderson, R. E. (2018). Multivariate data analysis. Hampshire: Cengage.
35. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
36. Hayes, A. F. ve Rockwood, N. J. (2017). Regression-based statistical mediation and moderation analysis in clinical research: Observations, recommendations, and implementation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 98, 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.11.001
37. Helm, S. (2011). Corporate reputation: An introduction to a complex construct. S. Helm, K. Liehr-Gobbers ve C. Strock (Ed.), Reputation management içinde (ss. 3–16). New York: Springer.
38. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. ve Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D79B73
39. Hu, L. T. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
40. Iacoviello, G., Bruno, E. ve Cappiello, A. (2019). A theoretical framework for managing intellectual capital in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 33(5), 919–938. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2018-0080
41. İnandı, Y. ve Kılavuz, T. (2020). İnovasyonun nedenleri ve değişime açıklık: Yükseköğretim örneği. M. Çetin ve İ. Karsantık (Ed.), İnovasyon yönetiminde stratejiler ve süreçler içinde (ss. 269–288). Ankara: Nobel.
42. Jones, N., Meadow, C. ve Sicilia, M. A. (2009). Measuring intellectual capital in higher education. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 8(2), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649209002282
43. Karacan, S. (2004). Entelektüel sermaye ve yönetimi. Mali Çözüm, 69, 177–199. https://www.ismmmo.org.tr/Yayinlar/Mali-Cozum-Dergisi--1
44. Karchegani, M. R., Sofian, S. ve Amin, S. M. (2013). The relationship between intellectual capital and big data: A review. International Journal of Business Management Studies, 2(1), 561–581.
45. Kelly, A. (2004). The intellectual capital of schools - Measuring and managing knowledge responsibility and reward: Lessons from the commercial sector. Dodrecht: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
46. Kemppainen, H.-M. (2016). “This is reputation-driven activity” Higher education as a service export and the role of partnerships. Aalto University School of Business.
47. Keskin, H., Ayar Şentürk, H. ve Beydoğan, A. (2018). Yenilikçilik kalitesi perspektifinden bilgi paylaşımı, entelektüel sermaye ve peorformans ilişkisi. Business Management Studies: An International Journal, 6(3), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v6i3.344
48. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practices of structural equation modelling. New York: The Guilford Press.
49. Korcsmáros, E., Kosár, S. T. ve Csinger, B. (2021). Higher education institution in the 21st century - Key factors for prospective students. Proceedings of the international scientific conference Hradec Economic Days 2021, 11, 378–385. https://doi.org/10.36689/uhk/hed/2021-01-038
50. Lafuente-Ruiz-de-Sabando, A., Zorrilla, P. ve Forcada, J. (2018). A review of higher education image and reputation literature: Knowledge gaps and a research agenda. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 24(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.06.005
51. Laskin, A. V. (2013). Reputation or financial performance: Which comes first? C. E. Caroll (Ed.), The handbook of communication and corporate reputation içinde (ss. 376–387). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
52. Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C. ve Morgan, G. A. (2015). IBM SPSS intermediate statistics. New York: Routledge.
53. Liu, H., Gao, S., Xing, H., Xu, L., Wang, Y. ve Yu, Q. (2021). Shared leadership and innovative behavior in scientific research teams: A dual psychological perspective. Chinese Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-02-2020-0070
54. Liu, Q. (2011). Promoting innovation in China by sharing resources in clusters: The new firm perspective. Journal of Technology Management in China, 6(3), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/17468771111157454
55. Machado, C. ve Davim, J. P. (2020). Entrepreneurship and organizational innovation. Cham: Springer.
56. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M. ve Williams, J. (2004). Confidences limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
57. Mariani, G., Carlesi, A. ve Scarfò, A. A. (2018). Academic spinoffs as a value driver for intellectual capital: The case of the University of Pisa. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(1), 202–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-03-2017-0050
58. Marmara Üniversitesi. (2021a). Marmara Üniversitesi 2021-2025 stratejik planı. https://www.marmara.edu.tr/dosya/www/duyuru/2021/OCAK21/M.%C3%9C.%202021-2025%20Stratejik%20Plan%C4%B1.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
59. Marmara Üniversitesi. (2021b). Marmara Üniversitesi 2020 yılı idare faaliyet raporu. İstanbul. https://www.marmara.edu.tr/dosya/www/stratejikplan/M.%C3%9C.%202020%20Yili%20Idare%20Faaliyet%20Raporu_4%20%281%29.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
60. Marvel, M. R., Griffin, A., Hebda, J. ve Vojak, B. (2007). Examining the technical corporate entrepreneurs’ motivation: Voices from the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 753–769.
61. Matos, F., Vairinhos, V., Durst, S. ve Dameri, R. P. (2019a). Intellectual capital and innovation for sustainable smart cities: The case of n-tuple of helices. F. Matos, V. Vairinhos, P. M. Selig ve L. Edvinsson (Ed.), Intellectual capital management as a driver of sustainability: Perspectives for organizations and society içinde (ss. 49– 66). Cham: Springer.
62. Matos, F., Vairinhos, V., Selig, P. M. ve Edvinsson, L. (2019b). Intellectual capital management as a driver of sustainability: Perspectives for organizations and society. Cham: Springer.
63. Messmann, G., Evers, A. ve Kreijns, K. (2021). The role of basic psychological needs satisfaction in the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21451
64. Miotto, G., Del-Castillo-Feito, C. ve Blanco-González, A. (2020). Reputation and legitimacy: Key factors for higher education institutions’ sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Business Research, 112, 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.076
65. Mohamed, M. (2018). Challenges and benefits of industry 4.0: An overview. International Journal of Supply Operating Management, 5(3), 256–265. https://doi.org/10.22034/2018.3.7
66. Munisamy, S., Mohd Jaafar, N. I. ve Nagaraj, S. (2014). Does reputation matter? Case study of undergraduate choice at a premier university. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(3), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0120-y
67. Örnek, A. Ş. ve Ayas, S. (2015). The relationship between intellectual capital, innovative work behavior and business performance reflection. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1387–1395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.433
68. Özalp, U. ve Çetin, M. (2022). Academic Intellectual Capital Scale: A Validity and Reliability Study. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(1), 138-164. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.946530
69. Pedro, E. de M., Leitão, J. ve Alves, H. (2020). Stakeholders’ perceptions of sustainable development of higher education institutions: An intellectual capital approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(5), 911–942. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-01-2020-0030
70. Plewa, C., Ho, J., Conduit, J. ve Karpen, I. O. (2016). Reputation in higher education: A fuzzy set analysis of resource configurations. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3087–3095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.024
71. Prieto, I. M. ve Pilar Pérez-Santana, M. (2014). Managing innovative work behavior: the role of human resource practices. Personnel Review, 43(2), 184–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2012-0199
72. Qiu, L., Jie, X., Wang, Y. ve Zhao, M. (2020). Green product innovation, green dynamic capability, and competitive advantage: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 146–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1780
73. R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
74. Ressler, J. ve Abratt, R. (2009). Assessing the impact of university reputation on stakeholder intentions. Journal of General Management, 35(3), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630700903500104
75. RStudio Team. (2021). RStudio: Integrated development for R. RStudio. https://www.rstudio.com/
76. Saeed, M. M. ve Arshad, F. (2012). Corporate social responsibility as a source of competitive advantage: The mediating role of social capital and reputational capital. Journal of Database Marketing and Customer Strategy Management, 19(4), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1057/dbm.2012.19
77. Sánchez, M. P. ve Elena, S. (2006). Intellectual capital in universities: Improving transparency and internal management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(4), 529–548. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930610709158
78. Sart, G. (2021). Akademisyenlerde yenilikçi iş davranışının örgütsel yaratıcılığa etkisi. Bilim-Teknoloji-Yenilik Ekosistemi Dergisi, 2(1), 21–29.
79. Savalei, V. ve Bentler, P. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, 1(1), 1-3.
80. Schaarschmidt, M. (2016). Frontline employees’ participation in service innovation implementation: The role of perceived external reputation. European Management Journal, 34(5), 540–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.005
81. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. ve Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.
82. Schneider, P. (2018). Managerial challenges of Industry 4.0: An empirically backed research agenda for a nascent field. Review of Managerial Science, 12(3), 803–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0283-2
83. Schumacker, R. E. ve Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. New York: Routledge.
84. Segars, A. H. ve Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 17(4), 517–525. https://doi.org/10.2307/249590
85. Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. ve Farrell, M. (2017). Organizational climate for innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of innovative work behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.02.004
86. Sharabati, A. A. A., Jawad, S. N. ve 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
87. Shrand, B. ve Ronnie, L. (2021). Commitment and identification in the ivory tower: Academics’ perceptions of organisational support and reputation. Studies in Higher Education, 46(2), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1630810
88. Sis Atabay, E. ve Şahin, K. (2021). Kurumsal itibar ile finansal performans arasındaki ilişkide inovasyon kapasitesinin aracılık etkisi. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 7(1), 139–167.
89. Šontaitė-Petkevičienė, M. (2015). Corporate reputation management of higher education institutions: Disparities of stakeholders’ approaches. Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, 74(37), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.7220/mosr.2335.8750.2015.74.9
90. Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017
91. Suciu, M.-C. ve Năsulea, D.-F. (2019). Intellectual capital and creative economy as key drivers for competitiveness towards a smart and sustainable development: Challenges and opportunities for cultural and creative communities. F. Matos, V. Vairinhos, P. M. Selig ve L. Edvinsson (Ed.), Intellectual capital management as a driver of sustainability: Perspectives for organizations and society içinde (ss. 67–97). Cham: Springer.
92. Sun, X. (2021). Employees’ innovative behavior in the workplace: A study of intellectual capital effect on the service-oriented companies in Thailand. Thammasat Review, 24(2), 112–132. https://doi.org/10.14456/tureview.2021.20
93. Suomi, K. (2014). Exploring the dimensions of brand reputation in higher education – a case study of a Finnish master’s degree programme. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(6), 646–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2014.957893
94. Tajvidi, M. ve Karami, A. (2015). Product development strategy: Innovation capacity and entrepreneurial firm performance in high-tech SMEs. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
95. Teddlie, C. ve Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292430
96. Toraman, C., Abdioğlu, H. ve İşgüden, B. (2009). İşletmelerde inovasyon süreci̇nde entelektüel sermaye ve yöneti̇m muhasebesi̇ kapsamında değerlendi̇ri̇lmesi̇. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 91–120.
97. URAP. (2022a). University ranking by academic performance. https://newtr.urapcenter.org/Methodology adresinden erişilmiştir.
98. URAP. (2022b). 2021-2022 URAP dünya sıralaması basın bildirisi. https://newtr.urapcenter.org/cdn/storage/PDFs/zd7KZsWri2A4CtCDh/original/zd7KZsWri2A4CtCDh.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
99. URAP. (2022c). 2021 yılında 203 üniversitemizin 11 dünya genel sıralamasındaki durumu. https://newtr.urapcenter.org/cdn/storage/PDFs/qFtH9qx6oa4oDRnfX/original/qFtH9qx6oa4oDRnfX.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
100. URAP. (2022d). 2020-2021 tüm üniversitelerin genel sıralaması. https://newtr.urapcenter.org/Rankings/2020-2021/2020-2021-T%C3%BCm%20%C3%9Cniversitelerin%20Genel%20Puan%20Tablosu adresinden erişilmiştir.
101. Üçok, D. I. (2008). Kalite odaklı yönetimin kurumsal itibar yaratmadaki rolü, önemi ve RepTrack itibar endeksi yardımıyla bir uygulama (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
102. van Riel, C. B. M. ve Fombrun, C. J. (2007). Essentials of corporate communication: Implementing practices for effective reputation management. Oxon: Routledge.
103. van Zyl, L. E., van Oort, A., Rispens, S. ve Olckers, C. (2021). Work engagement and task performance within a global Dutch ICT-consulting firm: The mediating role of innovative work behaviors. Current Psychology, 40(8), 4012–4023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00339-1
104. Wahyudi Rahman, M. F., Kistyanto, A. ve Surjanti, J. (2020). Flexible work arrangements in Covid-19 pandemic era, influence employee performance: The mediating role of innovative work behavior. International Journal of Management, Innovation & Entrepreneurial Research, 6(2), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.18510/ijmier.2020.622
105. Wang, Z., Cui, T., Cai, S. ve Ren, S. (2021). Team reflexivity, individual intellectual capital and employee innovative behavior: A multilevel moderated mediation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, (17). https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2020-0362
106. Wu, H. Y., Chen, J. K. ve Chen, I. S. (2012). Ways to promote valuable innovation: Intellectual capital assessment for higher education system. Quality and Quantity, 46(5), 1377–1391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9451-z
107. Wu, X. ve Sivalogathasan, V. (2013). Innovation capability for better performance: Intellectual capital and organization performance of the apparel industry in Sri Lanka. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 1(3), 273–277. https://doi.org/10.12720/joams.1.3.273-277
108. Yitmen, I. (2011). Intellectual capital: A competitive asset for driving innovation in engineering design firms. EMJ - Engineering Management Journal, 23(2), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2011.11431891
109. YÖK. (2022). Yükseköğretim bilgi yönetim sistemi. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/ adresinden erişilmiştir.
110. Yuan, F. ve Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.49388995