The purpose of this article is to provide a comparative analysis of knowledge transfer processes in Greece’s public and private sectors, with particular emphasis on organizations operating in the fields of economics and management. Knowledge is widely recognized as a critical organizational resource and a key determinant of managerial effectiveness, innovation capacity, competitiveness, and organizational performance. Against this background, the study examines the extent to which knowledge transfer practices are implemented across the two sectors and investigates whether the barriers to knowledge transfer differ between public-sector organizations and private enterprises.

The theoretical framework draws on the established distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is codifiable and can be captured, stored, and disseminated through documents, manuals, databases, and standardized operating procedures. Tacit knowledge, by contrast, is embedded in employees’ experience, intuition, skills, judgment, and practical know-how. Knowledge stickiness is particularly significant in this context, as it refers to the difficulties involved in transferring knowledge from a source to a recipient. Such difficulties may be reinforced by organizational silos, low levels of trust, inadequate incentives, and restricted horizontal knowledge flows. The SECI model further highlights the dynamic interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge through four processes: socialization, whereby tacit knowledge is shared through experience and interpersonal interaction; externalization, whereby tacit knowledge is articulated and converted into explicit, codified knowledge; combination, whereby different bodies of explicit knowledge are integrated; and internalization, whereby explicit knowledge is absorbed through practical application and becomes part of an individual’s tacit knowledge base. These processes jointly underpin organizational knowledge creation and dissemination.

The empirical analysis was based on eight semi-structured interviews with four managers from public-sector organizations and four from private enterprises. Most participants occupied senior managerial positions and had professional experience in management, employee training and development, and the coordination of organizational processes. The qualitative data were analyzed using NVivo 13 through thematic coding and keyword analysis.

Findings indicate that knowledge transfer in the public sector occurs to a considerable extent through informal practices, interpersonal exchanges, and individual initiatives. A defining feature of the public-sector environment is that knowledge is primarily transferred in response to a specific operational need. Knowledge-sharing practices therefore tend to be reactive and ad hoc rather than proactive and systematically embedded in organizational routines. This pattern is largely attributable to the limited availability of structured training and mentoring programs, formal knowledge repositories, and systematic performance-evaluation mechanisms. As a result, organizational knowledge remains heavily dependent on the experience and willingness of individual employees, increasing the risk of knowledge loss and weakening organizational memory. Knowledge transfer in the private sector, by contrast, appears to be more formalized and more closely integrated into routine organizational processes. It is supported by onboarding programs, training and skills-development initiatives, performance appraisal systems, and mechanisms linking knowledge acquisition and sharing to individual and organizational performance. Nevertheless, the presence of a public-sector organization characterized by institutional autonomy and structured training systems demonstrates that effective knowledge transfer is not determined exclusively by sectoral affiliation. It also depends on managerial commitment, organizational resources, institutional capacity, and the broader regulatory framework.

Regarding the second research dimension, findings suggest that, although certain knowledge-transfer barriers are present in both sectors, their nature and underlying causes are not identical. Organizational silos, knowledge stickiness, knowledge hoarding, the perception of knowledge as an individually owned resource, and low levels of interpersonal trust constitute shared obstacles. In the public sector, however, these barriers are more closely associated with bureaucratic structures, hierarchical decision-making, weak incentive systems, and limited interdepartmental collaboration. In the private sector, they are more commonly linked to internal competition, concerns over individual status and career security, and the close association between knowledge possession and personal performance. The principal difference between the two sectors therefore lies in the qualitative characteristics and organizational origins of the barriers, rather than solely in their prevalence or intensity.

The comparative analysis ultimately indicates that both the level of institutionalization of knowledge transfer practices and the specific barriers encountered are shaped not only by individual attitudes and behaviors, but also by the institutional and organizational conditions that make knowledge sharing a more or less rational course of action for organizational members. Organizational culture consequently plays a decisive role in determining whether available knowledge is systematically leveraged, incorporated into organizational memory, and retained as a sustainable institutional resource.