Toyota's success : Human capital and investment company Empirical studies of the 1980s gave different results when

looking at the relationship etween human capital and corporate performance ! The relationship etween H" planning with usiness performance # and found no such correlation ! This result is also supported y studies ased on surveys $ %elaney # &ewin and 'chniowski 1988# 1989 ( which concluded there was no relationship etween H" practices with firm financial performance $ )komo 198*( ! +hile empirical studies in the 1990s proved now more positive and significant relationship etween human capital and corporate performance ! ,uest et al study # conduct research terhadapa the relationship etween human capital and firm performance in -.. companies in the /0 ! The results showed more use of human resources associated with the turnover rate low la or capa le of generating profit per worker is higher ut productivity is low ! 1y estimating the performance # there is a very strong relationship etween H" and productivity and financial performance $ 2ichie 300-( ! &eong and +u # also proved positive and significant relationship etween intellectual capital and company performance $ 4nyder and +u 3005( ! Empirical studies related to the relationship of intellectual capital in the form of knowledge resources $knowledge ( with the performance of the company # among others# performed y : )onaka and Takeuchi # and 6ahra and ,eorge ! 4tated that the only company that can produce new knowledge on an ongoing asis are a le to achieve a etter position to have a competitive advantage $ )onaka and Takeuchi 1997( ! 6ahra and ,eorge # e8pressed reconceptuali9ation of a model that connects the source of knowledge # a sorptive capacity and the company's a ility to generate competitive advantage $ 6ahra and ,eorge 3007( ! :ompetitive advantage can only e achieved if the individual sources of knowledge on which the force is managed and maintained ! ;s noted also y 2orling and <akhlef that will determine the company's success is the company's a ility to manage knowledge assets $ 2orling 1999( ! The company can not create knowledge without action and interaction of its employees ! This is where the importance of the ehavior of the employee making knowledge sharing ! 1ollinger and 4mith # argues that human ehavior is the key to the success or failure of a knowledge management strategy $ 1olinger and 4mith 3001( ! However knowledge lies in individual and created y individuals $ )onaka and Takeuchi 1997( ! 0nowledge will give the role of a sorptive capacity in case the activity of e8changing knowledge etween employees ! The relationship etween training and human resource development with the company's performance # among others# performed y 1lack and &ynch # 199.= ,arcia # 3007# and 0hatri # 3000 ! 0nowledge and skills of employees through training activities have ecome important in improving corporate performance ! >reffer and /pton # stating that the success of a firm in the face of market competition is determined primarily y human capital # not physical capital and so companies are encouraged to invest in training to improve knowledge resources # and the a ility of employees keahliaan etter than the competitors $ preffer 1995 ( ! Therefore # corporate spending for training and human resource development activities are very important for maintaining and improving keahliaan and knowledge workers to e a le to create a sustaina le competitive advantage $ 1arney 1991( # improving corporate performance $ 0o9lowski 3000( !