Examining Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Memory And Resource Complementarity In The Service Sector


The importance of information sharing is increasing day by day for organizations. Particularly in providing organizational memory, healthy information sharing among internal stakeholders is taken into consideration by management. Knowledge sharing and strong organizational memory can be regarded as two important factors underlying innovation. If these relationships are achieved, organizations gain an important advantage in achieving the goals and targets. The aim of the research is to analyze the relationships between the variables that are likely to affect organizational innovation in logistics companies in the service sector. Since the logistics companies have to follow and apply the innovations continuously due to their important dynamic structures, the research has been done in these companies. The questionnaires were collected from administrative staff working in service firms. The reason for collecting questionnaires from administrative staff is that they have experience in internal knowledge sharing and organizational innovation. SPSS 25 program was used to analyze the data obtained from the sample population with the survey application. Factor and reliability, mean of variables loaded on each factor, correlation and regression analyzes were done. Sobel test was also done for mediation effect. As a result of the research, the effect of intraorganizational knowledge sharing on organizational innovation has gained importance. The variable effects of organizational memory and resource complementarity tool were meaningless. However, the independent variable effect of both variables has a significant and positive effect on organizational innovation.

Keywords: Knowledge sharingresource complementarityorganizational memoryınnovationorganizational ınnovativeness


Knowledge sharing is one of the most important elements of knowledge management. The fact that knowledge is the only business entity that increases as it is used and shared, and that it is much more important besides tangible business assets, has given special importance to knowledge sharing (Dinçmen, 2010). Generally, knowledge sharing is the information communication of people within a group. This group can consist of members working in an enterprise. It consists of interaction between a workplace or friends, between a minimum of two or more individuals. The main purpose of this is to actively use the available information to improve the performance of the group (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). In this way, organizational innovation is also positively affected by the change and development in the organization. The main objective in ensuring organizational innovation is to meet the expectations of the organization to respond to the needs and needs of customers. Knowledge sharing takes place at different levels between individuals and departments in each enterprise in different ways. In the sharing of knowledge, the stakeholder accepting the knowledge must be voluntary. In other words, knowledge exchange is an exchange of knowledge by consensus among individuals without any coercion between the stakeholders (Yeniçeri & Demirel, 2007). On the other hand, the concept of organizational memory has been discussed for more than a quarter of a century and there is uncertainty about its definition (Ackerman, 1996). The concept has been tried to be explained from the individual memory and some researchers have used the concept only as a metaphor, while others have suggested that organizations have the ability to think. In addition to, although it is examined in terms of content from the point of view of organizational memory storage (Walsh & Ungson, 1991), it has started to be considered as a system in the following years (Stein & Zwass, 1995). The reflection of the knowledge that organizations have on their competencies and experiences is identified with the concept of organizations' memory. Organizational memory can be mentioned when organizations can reflect the knowledge and experience gained from the past with their memory in a positive way to their performance. It is important for organizations to use resources and to complete their resources in the most effective way in order to be successful in their industry. The importance of internal knowledge sharing also emerges on the completion of resources and their positive reflection on innovation. In the research conducted by Walsh and Ungson in 1991, they stated that the information stored in the process from the establishment of the organization to the present day is important for making decisions about the organization (Walsh & Ungson, 1991). According to Argyris and Schön, organizational memory is a map of the organization's past. The knowledge that constitutes organizational memory is scattered in individuals' minds, files, documents or computer memories, and this dispersed knowledge should be organized and translated into a whole picture for use in business activities and learning (Argyris & Schoen, 1978). Within the scope of the research model, the relationships between Intraorganizational knowledge sharing, Resource Complementarity, Organizational memory and Organizational innovativeness variables are examined.

Problem Statement

Intraorganizational Knowledge Sharing

The information that companies have can be boomed as an important resource for them to compete. In order for companies to be successful in their markets, they must be able to use their knowledge infrastructure very well. In particular, the information they possess should not be imitated easily and the knowledge acquired by developing a dynamic skill for a long time should be used (Liu & Liang, 2015). The information that companies have can positively affect learning and development in order to ensure innovation. However, the information possessed may need to be transparent and clear within the organization. Because problems are likely to be experienced if information that is not clear and understandable is shared. Information must be shared in a correct and understandable manner in order for employees to be internalized, shared and innovated (Doz & Hamel, 1998). Knowledge-based focus on strategy research and knowledge and ways to improve it have become an important strategic issue. Sharing information among the strategic alliances established by firms in order to be successful in the competitive environment can gain a competitive advantage in terms of both providing new information flow and developing innovation. However, caution should be exercised so that information sharing between alliances cannot be imitated by other competitors (Jiang et al., 2016). The confusion of the business environment has made organizations' knowledge a major source of competitive advantage. In order to meet the expectations and wishes of the consumers, organizations must constantly acquire new information and use this information very well within the organization. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to achieve the sustainability of the enterprises if the demands of the consumers are not met. Successful information exchange within the organization plays a key role in gaining competitive advantage. The function of the internal information sharing, which plays an important role in the success of the organizations against their rivals, in the realization of the objectives and targets pushes the organizations to dominate this field. Therefore, internal information sharing has a significant effect on organizational memory and organizational innovation (Van Wijk et al., 2008). The research model examines the effects of intraorganizational knowledge sharing on resource complementarity, organizational memory and organizational innovativeness.

Resource Complementarity

Resources are anything that can be thought of as the strengths or weaknesses of an enterprise, or are tangible and abstract entities that are partly connected to the enterprise (Wernerfelt, 1984). Resources are inputs that participate in the production process. Resources are tangible and intangible assets that an enterprise uses to develop and implement strategies. Resources are also valuable to the extent they create value (Huang et al., 2015). In other words, resources are valuable to the extent that they reduce costs or differentiate the product. On the other hand, Scarcity means that a resource is not commonly found in competing businesses (Barney, 1991). In other words, scarcity is that the supply of a resource is less than the demand of that resource. On the other side, Non-substitution means that a resource cannot be replaced with a different resource that can easily create the same effects (Bowman & Ambrosini, 2003). In other words, if a strategy can be implemented with any of two different sources, these resources are substitutes for each other. Complementary resources are not the same, but they concurrently complement each other at the same time. Organizations need to use and develop their resources very well in order to gain competitive advantage over competitors, while at the same time avoiding the reactions of competitors and providing unimitable and unique products/services. Another important point for organizations is the acquisition of new skills with the resources they provide, and opportunities for continuous development.

Organizational Memory

Organizational learning can be defined as the process of developing organizations' ability to learn and information, in order to protect and add power to competitiveness of enterprises in knowledge based economic system. Organizational learning is a widely used concept covering the experience. In organizational learning, group learning is essential. Learning through individual work in the industrial society education model has been replaced by teamwork in the informatics society education model. It is important to give importance to organizational learning in enterprises, to emerge information, to make more use of fields of organizational theory, industrial economics, business, management, quality and innovation, but is also the focus of many different disciplines. The most distinctive feature of organizational learning is to propose new ways of thinking in solving complex problems. Organizational learning shows a development line in various aspects. The focal point of the process of adapting and sustaining life is the organizational learning type advocated by Senge (1997). Organizational learning plays an important role in the successful provision of organizational memory. Organizations need to be able to create the organizational memory so that they can analyze the information they have and use it clearly and understandably after making the analysis (Lee et al., 2017). Organizational memory is defined as the place where it is stored for future use, consisting of numerical data and pictures, experiences as knowledge, critical events, stories and details of strategic concepts.

Organizational Innovativeness

The conscious or unconscious adoption of the organizations within a social system can lead to a relative advantage. In order to ensure organizational innovation, the organizational structure must first be supported by the new management model. After creating a new management model, organizational innovation can be achieved by carrying out innovation activities in products and services along with management techniques, business models and management strategies. In their study, Wang and Ahmed (2004) state that organizational innovation is the result of implementing new products and services as a result of the combination of innovative behaviors and strategic orientation. For example, an innovation that is very useful in an administrative sense to an organization may not provide an additional contribution to the existing situation or structure of another organization. The information shared within the organization among employees can turn into organizational information over time and this information can be the source of organizational innovation. In addition, executives play an important role in the adoption of organizational innovation, such as resource allocation (Azar & Ciabuschi, 2017). On the other hand, it will be important in terms of organizations that have started to benefit from innovation or the fact that the predominant organizations in the center of the system adopt innovation from other organizations before, and constitute a plan model for other actors who adopt the innovation. Accordingly, innovation will be first adopted by the leading actors in the system, and then the pressures of the leading actors in different directions will cause the other actors in the system to adopt innovation and there will be a significant increase in the number of organizations that adopt them in the process. It is important how innovation is defined and perceived by organizations in order to expand and discuss such a discussion in the theoretical context. The reason why innovation is strategically important; it provides an advantage over the competitors in meeting the demands and needs of the customers and gaining competitiveness (Abdallah et al., 2019). In order for companies to be successful in competition and gain competitive advantage, they need to successfully apply organizational innovation. When look at innovative companies, it can be seen that they are successful in responding to the requests and needs of customers in a timely manner and by engaging in creative activities in products/services. Imitating rivals’ innovations or tender sources of competitive advantages can occasionally have the same effect on allied superior performance, as being innovative. In addition, imitation, one of the causes of failure in organizational innovation, removes the information resources and competitive advantage of the organization (Olavarrieta & Friedmann, 2008). Therefore, the importance of researches in organizational innovation should be emphasized (Drucker, 2012). With the spread of innovation activities within the organization, it can be successful in organizational innovation (Rogers, 1995). However, organizational innovation is very important in creating a working environment that encourages creative thinking as a result of different ideas coming together to create a brainstorming.

Research Questions

A quantitative approach has been adopted to analyze the data collected within the scope of the research. In the research model, the relationships between variables were analyzed statistically and hypotheses were tested (Thomas et al., 2015). As a result of the explanations mentioned, directions and hypotheses are stated in the relationship between variables within the research model (figure 01 ).

Figure 1: Research Model
Research Model
See Full Size >

Hypotheses examined and tested in the given theoretical context;

H1: In order for the organizational memory to develop positively, it is necessary to knowledge share in organizations.

H2: In order for the resource complementarity to develop positively, it is necessary to knowledge share in organizations.

H3: In order for organizational innovation to develop positively, it is necessary to knowledge share in organizations.

H4: Organizational memory has an impact on organizational innovativeness in the organization.

H5: Resource complementarity has an impact on organizational innovativeness in the organization.

H6: Organizational memory must have a mediation variable effect in order to increase the positive effect between knowledge sharing and organizational innovation in organizations.

H7: In order to increase the positive effect between knowledge sharing and organizational innovation in organizations, resource complementarity should have a mediation variable effect.

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this research is to obtain meaningful scientific results by obtaining data on variables from logistics companies in Istanbul and examining these data with scientific research methods. The question of this research is how the effects of internal information sharing on employees' usage of resources and organizational memory and organizational innovation are shaped.

Research Methods

The aim of the research is to analyze the relationships between the variables that are likely to affect organizational innovation in logistics companies in the service sector. Since the logistics companies have to follow and apply the innovations continuously due to their important dynamic structures, the research has been done in these companies. Surveys were collected from administrative staff (white collar). SPSS 25 program was used to analyze the data obtained from the sample population with the survey application Factor and reliability, mean of variables loaded on each factor, correlation and regression analyzes were done. Sobel test was also performed for mediation effect.

Measurement (Scales)

The survey consists of scales representing four variables. The scales used were taken from previously published articles. Organizational memory scale was obtained from the scales in the articles conducted by Yeung et al. (1999), Yu et al. (2013). The organizational innovativeness scale was utilized by Hult et al. (2003). Interorganizational knowledge sharing was obtained from the scale developed by Calantone et al. (2002), Hult and Ferrell (1997). The resource complementarity scale was developed by using the articles conducted in Lambe et al. (2002), Srivastava et al. (2017). A 5-point Likert scale was used, ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree".


Surveys were collected from the administrative staff working at the headquarters of logistics companies in Istanbul. It has been applied to 324 white collars in different departments of the companies. 216 (73%) males and 108 (27%) females answered the questionnaire. Also, 118 (37%) of the participants were in the 17-27 age group; 159 (49.7%) are in the 28-40 age group. The number of managers over the age of 41 was 47 (13.3%). While 40 (12%) were college graduates, 240 (74%) were university graduates; 44 (14%) have masters degree. On the other hand, the level of achievement of the goals determined by the employees individually; 34 participants stated that they achieved their targets as “Very Low”, 57 participants stated that they were “Low”, 137 participants stated that they were “Medium”, 126 participants stated that they were “High”, 46 participants stated that they were “Very High”.


Validity is the extent to which the desired property is measured accurately (Büyüköztürk, 2009). Although there are different types of validity in the literature, the scope and construct validity of the study were investigated. Scope validity relates to the extent to which the items of the scale were successful in measuring the totality of defined behaviors that were to be measured (Büyüköztürk, 2011). Factor analysis and hypothesis testing are two commonly used methods to examine construct validity (Büyüköztürk, 2011). One of the criteria for the suitability of the data structure for factor analysis is the results of the KaiserMeyer-Olkin (KMO) test. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value indicates the predictability of each variable in the scale by other variables. The fact that the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test result is less than 0.50 means that factor analysis cannot be continued (Çokluk et al., 2018). The Bartlett test examines the probability that there are high-rate correlations between at least some of the variables in the correlation matrix. The high correlation between the variables indicates the suitability of the data set for factor analysis (Kalaycı, 2009). As a result of the explanations stated, it is seen that the validity of the scales is above 0.50 (table 01 ).

Table 1 -
See Full Size >

Reliability Analysis; In order to determine whether the scales used in the surveys provide internal consistency, reliability analysis is performed (Karasar, 2009). In other words, the consistency of the scales that were previously relied on is reliability analysis. In the reliability analysis, the scales below 0.70 should be removed because it impairs internal consistency. For this reason, values ​​that are generally 0.70 and above in social sciences are accepted to provide internal consistency (Özen et al., 2006). As a result of the explanations stated, the reliability of the variables is higher than 0.70 (table 02 ).

Table 2 -
See Full Size >

Correlation Analysis; Correlation analysis shows the direction and strength of the relationships between variables (Çokluk et al., 2018). It is an analysis method that shows whether the relationships between the variables are meaningful and how they are changing (Kalaycı, 2009). Regardless of the sign of the correlation coefficient, the value being below 0.30 indicates a low, the value being between 0.30 and 0.69 indicates a medium, and a value of 0.70 and above indicates a high level of relationship (Köklü et al., 2007). The statistical significance of the correlation requires hypothesis testing (Çokluk et al., 2018). As a result of these explanations, the relations are explained in the correlation table (table 03 ).

Table 3 -
See Full Size >

As a result of correlation analysis, the relationships between the variables were significant and positive. It can be explained that internal information sharing, organizational memory, resource complementarity, organizational innovativeness variables affect positively. As a result of the significant relationship between the variables, regression analysis was performed to test the hypotheses mentioned in the research model (table 04 ).

Table 4 -
See Full Size >

The effect of independent variables on dependent variables was examined by regression analysis, and hypothesis results were stated as a result of these analyzes (Table 05 ).

Table 5 -
See Full Size >

5 hypotheses are determined outside the effect of mediation variable are supported as a result of analysis. Regression analysis in which the mediator variable effect is tested is shown in table 06 .

Table 6 -
See Full Size >

It was concluded that the effect of mediator variable was not effected by regression analysis and the effect between independent and dependent variable was meaningless. However, in order to check whether the effect of mediator variable is meaningless, sobel test was also performed (table 07 ). The Sobel test includes the ratio of the product of coefficient estimates a and b to the standard error of that product. Many formulas have been proposed to estimate this standard error; however, differences between them often have insignificant effects on test results (MacKinnon et al., 2002; Preacher & Hayes, 2004). As a result of the calculation, value of mediation effect is obtained. This value is used to assess that the mediating effect is not statistically significant using the probabilities corresponding to the standard normal distribution.

Table 7 -
See Full Size >

As a result of the Sobel test, the mediator variable effect was tested to be insignificant and the hypothesis was supported in table 08 .

Hypothesis results;

Table 8 -
See Full Size >

In the hypotheses where the mediator variable effect is tested, it is stated that there is no mediator variable effect and the established hypotheses are not supported. The reason that the organizational memory and resource complementarity variables do not have a mediation effect can be interpreted as the continuous use of new information is obsolete and does not remain in the organizational memory due to the continuous renewal of itself in a dynamic structure in the service sector. At the same time, Resource complementarity can be explained that the effect of the service sector on the basis of constant change in resources has disappeared.


Organizations cannot truly absorb knowledge without knowledge sharing, in sharing information, it should be taken into consideration that the implicit knowledge of employees about experience and practice is at least as important as the technical information they can express clearly. Both formal tools such as information technologies and non-formal tools such as daily personal and group chat should be used for sharing. On the other hand, organizational culture should also be open to knowledge sharing. In order to share knowledge in a healthy way. The existence of reward and support mechanisms to encourage knowledge sharing facilitates knowledge sharing (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). One of the immediate benefits of knowledge sharing is the effective fulfillment of the task and the revelation of innovative aspects of employees. The opportunities of knowledge sharing provide a sustainable competitive advantage (Olavarrieta & Friedmann, 2008). As a result of the analyzes, it can be seen that internal information sharing affects variables positively. At the same time, organizational memory and resource complementarity variables affect organizational innovation positively. Keeping the knowledge of organizations in a strong memory also affects the innovations of the organization positively. However, resource complementarity, positive impact on organizational innovation, shows the importance and value of the resources of organizations. Knowledgeable companies can create more “value inden than their competitors by integrating and coordinating traditional resources and capabilities with new and interesting ways. On the other hand, Successful innovation studies of organizations show that organizational innovation is not only a commercial success, but also organizational innovation is adopted by the employees within the organization. When we look at the main objectives in providing organizational innovation; to reduce costs, to increase employee satisfaction and efficiency, to ensure the sustainability of innovation activities to be successful in the industry. At the same time, it should not be underestimated that organizational memory and internal information sharing affect organizational innovation positively. The concept of organizational memory is interesting in that it emphasizes that a community of individuals has a separate memory beyond the memories of individuals (Kılıç, 2007). Organizational memory is a process for the structure of information retention and reassessment activities and is represented at various levels at individual and organizational levels. Stored information has an impact on the future perception and decision-making levels of the organization, so it is important to have a structure open to development for the organization. From the organizational level, memory is a concept related to the transfer of the knowledge accumulated by the organization to the future and incorporates the collective belief, behavior routines and physical storage units that vary in terms of content, spread, access and level Organizational memory reduces costs by transferring information from the past to the future, contributes to an effective decision-making process and provides an understanding of organizational life (Akgün et al., 2005). As a result of the analysis, we can explain the importance of both organizational memory and resource completion in terms of organizational innovation. However, we can assume that the loss of mediation of these variables may be due to the relationships between the employees because of the lack of their effects as mediation variables and the effective sharing of information for the organization. Resource complementarity and the absence of mediating variable effects of organizational memory may be a major resource for studies planned in this area. Because of the findings to be obtained as a result of the studies to be conducted in this field, it will be possible to reveal new concepts by making comparative analyzes and gain them into literature.


  1. Abdallah, A. B., Dahiyat, S. E., & Matsui, Y. (2019). Lean management and innovation performance: Evidence from international manufacturing companies. Management Research Review, 42(2), 239-262.
  2. Ackerman, M. S. (1996). Definitional and contextual issues in organizational and group memories. Information Technology & People, 9(1), 10-24.
  3. Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., & Günsel, A. (2005). Örgütsel Hafıza ile Enformasyon Teknolojileri (IT) Arasındaki İlişkiler [The Relationships Between Organizational Memory And Information Technologies (IT)]. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 1-16.
  4. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly, 107-136.
  5. Argyris, C., & Schoen, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action research. Reading, Addision-Wesley.
  6. Azar, G., & Ciabuschi, F. (2017). Organizational innovation, technological innovation, and export performance: The effects of innovation radicalness and extensiveness. International Business Review, 26(2), 324-336.
  7. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
  8. Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2003). How the resource-based and the dynamic capability views of the firm inform corporatelevel strategy, British Journal of Management, 14, 289–303.
  9. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (10. Baskı) [Book of data analysis for social sciences (10th Edition)]. Pegem A Akademi.
  10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (17. bs.) [Book of data analysis for social sciences (17th Edition)].  Pegem Akademi.
  11. Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial marketing management, 31(6), 515-524.
  12. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS and LISREL practices]. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 001-414.
  13. Dinçmen, M. (2010). Bilgi yönetimi ve uygulamaları. [Knowledge management and applications]. Papatya Yayıncılık.
  14. Doz, Y. L., & Hamel, G. (1998). Alliance advantage: The art of creating value through partnering. Harvard Business Press.
  15. Drucker, P. (2012). The practice of management. Routledge.
  16. Huang, H. C., Lai, M. C., & Huang, W. W. (2015). Resource complementarity, transformative capacity, and inbound open innovation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30(7), 842-854.
  17. Hult, G. T. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1997). Global organizational learning capacity in purchasing: construct and measurement. Journal of business research, 40(2), 97-111.
  18. Hult, G. T. M., Snow, C. C., & Kandemir, D. (2003). The role of entrepreneurship in building cultural competitiveness in different organizational types. Journal of management, 29(3), 401-426.
  19. Jiang, X., Bao, Y., Xie, Y., & Gao, S. (2016). Partner trustworthiness, knowledge flow in strategic alliances, and firm competitiveness: A contingency perspective. Journal of business research, 69(2), 804-814.
  20. Kalaycı, Ş. (2009). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri [SPSS applied multivariate statistics techniques]. Asil Yayın Dağıtım Ltd.
  21. Karasar, N. (2009). Research method. Nobel Yayıncılık.
  22. Kılıç, T. (2007). Örgüt Kültürü, Örgütsel Hafıza Arasındaki İlişkiler ve Firma Performansı Üzerine Etkileri [The relationship between organizational culture and organizational memory and the impact on organizational performance]. (Published Master Thesis). Kadir Has Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Istanbul.
  23. Köklü, N., Büyüköztürk, Ş., & Çokluk-Bökeoğlu, Ö. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik [Statistics for social sciences]. Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  24. Lambe, C. J., Spekman, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (2002). Alliance competence, resources, and alliance success: conceptualization, measurement, and initial test. Journal of the academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 141-158.
  25. Lee, K., Kim, Y., & Joshi, K. (2017). Organizational memory and new product development performance: Investigating the role of organizational ambidexterity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 117-129.
  26. Liu, Y., & Liang, L. (2015). Evaluating and developing resource-based operations strategy for competitive advantage: an exploratory study of Finnish high-tech manufacturing industries. International Journal of Production Research, 53(4), 1019-1037.
  27. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.  Psychological methods, 7(1), 83.
  28. Olavarrieta, S., & Friedmann, R. (2008). Market orientation, knowledge-related resources and firm performance. Journal of business research, 61(6), 623-630.
  29. Özen, Y., Gülaçtı, F., & Kandemir, M. (2006). Eğitim bilimleri araştırmalarında geçerlik ve güvenirlik sorunsalı [The Problem Of Validity And Reliability In Educational Research]. Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 69-89.
  30. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 36(4), 717-731.
  31. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Lessons for guidelines from the diffusion of innovations. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 21(7), 324-328.
  32. Senge, P. M. (1997). The fifth discipline. Measuring Business Excellence, 1(3), 46-51.
  33. Srivastava, P., Iyer, K. N., & Rawwas, M. Y. (2017). Performance impact of supply chain partnership strategy-environment co-alignment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(7), 927-949.
  34. Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. (1995). Actualizing organizational memory with information systems. Information systems research, 6(2), 85-117.
  35. Thomas, J. R., Nelson, J. K., & Silverman, S. J. (2015). Research methods in physical activity. Human kinetics.
  36. Van Wijk, R., Justin, J. P. J., & Marjorie, A. L. (2008). Inter- and Intra-Organizational Knowledge Transfer: A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of Its Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 830-853.
  37. Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of management review, 16(1), 57-91.
  38. Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). The development and validation of the organizational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 303–313.
  39. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
  40. Yeniçeri, Ö., & Demirel, Y. (2007). İşletme koşullarının örgüt içi bilgi paylaşım iklimine etkisi [The impact of company conditions over knowledge sharing climate of organizations]. MÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enst. Dergisi, (27), 9-21.
  41. Yeung, A. K., Ulrich, D. O., Nason, S. W., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1999). Organizational learning capability. Oxford University Press on Demand.
  42. Yu, Y., Dong, X. Y., Shen, K. N., Khalifa, M., & Hao, J. X. (2013). Strategies, technologies, and organizational learning for developing organizational innovativeness in emerging economies. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), 2507-2514.

Copyright information

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

About this article

Publication Date

13 February 2021

eBook ISBN



European Publisher



Print ISBN (optional)


Edition Number

1st Edition




National interest, national identity, national security, national consciousness, social relations, public relation, public organizations, linguocultural identity, linguistics

Cite this article as:

Celtekligil, K., & Adiguzel, Z. (2021). Examining Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Memory And Resource Complementarity In The Service Sector. In C. Zehir, A. Kutlu, & T. Karaboğa (Eds.), Leadership, Innovation, Media and Communication, vol 101. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 59-72). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.02.6