Table 2 Workforce structure and flows by dominance and growth regime
All total | Innovation sample | Dominance | ΔE≥0 | ΔE<0 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | Growth | D+ | D− | D+ | D− | D+ | D− | |||
ΔE≥0 | ΔE<0 | |||||||||
Target groups among workforce (%) | ||||||||||
Young | 31.9 | 31.5 | 33.3 | 29.4 | 31.4 | 31.5 | 33.0 | 33.7 | 29.6 | 29.2 |
Old | 23.4 | 22.4 | 20.9 | 24.0 | 22.1 | 22.7 | 20.5 | 21.3 | 23.9 | 24.2 |
Target groups among worker inflows and outflows (%) | ||||||||||
Young among inflow | 51.8 | 55.1 | 52.8 | 57.8 | 57.2 | 52.9 | 55.9 | 49.4 | 58.7 | 56.8 |
Older among outflow | 24.7 | 25.0 | 21.6 | 28.5 | 26.1 | 23.8 | 22.1 | 21.1 | 30.4 | 26.6 |
Other workforce flow indicators | ||||||||||
Outflow rate (per 100 workers) | 7.9 | 7.9 | 8.7 | 7.0 | 6.7 | 9.0 | 6.9 | 10.6 | 6.6 | 7.3 |
Inflow rate (per 100 workers) | 7.9 | 7.5 | 10.8 | 3.8 | 6.4 | 8.6 | 8.7 | 13.6 | 3.8 | 3.8 |
Age-heterogeneity (years) | 9.3 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.1 | 9.9 | 10.2 | 9.6 | 10.3 | 10.1 | 10.1 |
Staffing patterns (on average, by group) | ||||||||||
Rejuvenating—inflow of younger (% yes) | 75.1 | 79.0 | 77.0 | 81.3 | 82.3 | 75.4 | 84.1 | 69.0 | 80.2 | 82.4 |
N | 10036 | 472 | 248 | 224 | 248 | 224 | 132 | 116 | 116 | 108 |
Rejuvenating—outflow of older (% yes) | 42.2 | 42.8 | 33.8 | 52.2 | 45.2 | 40.2 | 36.8 | 30.4 | 54.3 | 50.0 |
N | 9658 | 470 | 240 | 230 | 241 | 229 | 125 | 115 | 116 | 114 |
Churning level (rate) | 0.46 | 0.55 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.58 | 0.54 | 0.52 | 0.56 |
N | 11905 | 531 | 288 | 251 | 271 | 260 | 144 | 136 | 127 | 124 |
Change in age-heterogeneity (%) | 2.2 | +3.8 | +8.9 | −1.7 | +5.6 | +1.9 | +11.8 | +5.9 | −1.3 | −2.1 |
N | 14665 | 572 | 295 | 277 | 289 | 283 | 153 | 142 | 136 | 141 |