The study is based on a representative survey of more than 4,000 employees as well as in-depth case studies in key sectors. It was funded by the Hans Böckler Foundation. The focus is consistently on the transformation from the employees' perspective - and provides a picture that breaks with conventional narratives.

Change in the industry has long been a reality

Because change has long been a reality. Around half of those surveyed reported a high or very high level of dynamic change in their work. This is particularly evident in the automotive industry, the information and communications sector, financial services and energy supply. Transformation is not just a buzzword here, it is part of everyday life.

Contrary to what is often claimed, however, these changes are not met with fundamental rejection. Only 15 percent of those who experience transformation in concrete terms associate it primarily with risks. The majority are ambivalent about the change or recognize personal opportunities. "Employees are realistic about the transformation - neither uncritical nor fundamentally negative," says Thomas Lühr from ISF Munich.

What causes innovation backlogs in companies?

If there is still a problem, the authors believe that this is not due to an alleged "German Angst", but to the way in which companies organize change. The study identifies three mechanisms that promote an organizational innovation backlog.

Firstly, the development of new digital business models often fails due to internal power conflicts. Established business areas secure their position, resources remain tied up and political dependencies put the brakes on new developments.

Secondly, although modern forms of work such as agile organizational approaches are being introduced, they collide with persistent bureaucratic control logics. The new world of work is being proclaimed, but the old one remains in effect.

Thirdly, many companies lack a clear strategic orientation that offers employees reliable prospects for qualification and professional development.

The findings therefore shed a different light on common crisis diagnoses. References to high location costs or acceptance problems in the workforce fall short of the mark. Deficits in the management and coordination of operational transformation processes are also decisive. "Many companies are still processing the transition to a new industrial production method using control logic from the old world," explains Andreas Boes. "This leads to contradictory experiences, frictional losses and blocks innovation potential."

The consequence: a change of perspective is necessary. The widespread analysis that the transformation is failing because employees are unwilling to change does not stand up to the empirical findings. On the contrary: the study shows a workforce that is willing to break new ground if the framework conditions are right. The conclusion is that a genuine forward strategy for companies could build on this.