For a long time, engineers were the big winners on the German job market. But that has changed significantly in recent years. The job cuts in industry, for example in mechanical engineering and especially in the automotive industry, are hitting the professional group to the core. Added to this is technological change: artificial intelligence, robotics and the introduction of digital twins are significantly changing the skills requirements in technical professions – or even making them superfluous.
The Association of German Engineers (VDI) has now published a study on up- and reskilling in engineering. Around 1,300 members were surveyed for the study, and expert interviews were also conducted. Adrian Willig, Director of the VDI, explains the study results and their consequences.
Human Resources: Mr. Willig, why is Germany as a technology location currently under so much pressure?
Adrian Willig: Germany as a business and technology location is under great pressure against the background of digital change, especially AI, as well as increasing competition from the USA and China. If we want to continue to play a role in the global market in this country in the future, we need a boost in innovation, innovation-friendly framework conditions and investments in key technologies of the future, such as artificial intelligence, microelectronics, medical technology, sustainable mobility and energy.
And where do the engineers come into play?
These investments must then be made and implemented correctly. In numerous industries, engineers make a crucial contribution to the development of innovative products and processes as well as to the transfer from science to practice and value creation. In view of the ever faster pace of technological developments, the training and further education of these engineers must also keep pace.
How do the engineers you surveyed assess their own further training needs?
As part of the study, around 80 percent of those surveyed, regardless of age and industry, stated that they need to expand their skills in the next three years in order to remain professionally successful. Two thirds see a high to very high need for reskilling across their entire industry. On the other hand, however, a quarter believe that their industry is not at all or not at all sustainable – in their opinion this is particularly the case in parts of the chemical, metal and vehicle industries.
Could employees from crisis sectors – such as automobile manufacturing – move to high-growth areas such as the security and defense industries?
Ethical questions play a role for people, especially in the security and defense industries. This should definitely be taken into account and treated transparently when making reskilling decisions and when advising on further training measures. Basically, this industry offers an interesting perspective for engineers from the automotive sector. The experience of automotive engineers in series production, process control and increasing efficiency is also valuable for the defense industry. Specialists in sensor technology, mechatronics or cybersecurity are in demand there. At the same time, the industry offers comparable stability and attractive salaries.
Engineers have a reputation for often being very loyal to their employers. In addition, many of them had high incomes, particularly in the automotive industry. How can one promote individual willingness to continue training and change under these conditions?
On an individual level, it takes a certain openness and courage to adapt and rethink – be it with regard to your own skills, role, status or salary. The concept of lifelong learning must be firmly anchored in society and lived individually. Today, further training can no longer be seen as a correction of deficits, but should be seen as an opportunity. But politicians and companies can also provide incentives here. For example, through orientation offers or protected time slots that enable further training.
What could programs and formats look like that cover the self-attested high need for further training in the engineering professions?
The challenge is that technical leaps and developments are constantly taking place, especially in particularly in-demand skills such as AI, automation or data analysis. This dynamic must also be reflected in the further training formats in order to keep the transfer of knowledge up to date.
What do you specifically recommend?
Short-term, modular programs, for example, are ideal. In addition, micro-learning approaches with short competency checks and work-integrated learning projects enable direct transfer into practice. So-called “microcredentials” can also be helpful because they offer trustworthy proof of competence through quick, clearly defined qualification units with examination performance. Such shorter learning formats and their qualifications could then also be combined to form larger qualifications.
Which settings are particularly suitable?
Peer-to-peer formats or mentoring programs can often support the development of skills through exchange, feedback and knowledge transfer from practice better than individual learning. This particularly applies to highly dynamic professional fields and technologies.
How can companies ensure that their engineers can keep up with the latest technologies?
Today, specialist knowledge in fields such as AI or automation has a much shorter half-life than traditional basic technology. Companies can counteract this by thinking about further training measures on a continuous basis rather than selectively.
Structured further training is expensive and time-consuming. Small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) in particular are usually unable to cope with this or keep up with corporations.
That’s correct. Unlike large corporations, SMEs often do not always have their own academies, HR analytics or large-scale training programs. The resources for personnel planning and qualification are usually simply lower. There needs to be a rethink here: investments in up- and reskilling incur costs in the short term, but in the long term they are an important basis for securing skilled workers and thus for competitiveness. Further training is no longer a nice-to-have, it has to become a top priority and an industry and function-specific qualification strategy is needed.
What specifically do you recommend to SMEs?
Shorter and practice-oriented learning opportunities could be helpful for SMEs. According to our study, the topic of transparency also plays a role for employees: What offers does the company actually have? Around 25 percent of our respondents see deficits here, more in SMEs than in large companies. In recruiting, too, there certainly needs to be a little more openness for lateral entrants and a focus on skills and potential.
Further training often fails due to a lack of time and high costs. What can companies do to overcome these barriers and increase training commitment?
Managers should actively promote further training, link learning goals with project and business goals and create real time windows as well as physical or virtual learning spaces for qualification. In this way, competence building can be effective as an investment in future viability. Companies could also use collaborations and regional networks to make access to funding easier. Further training opportunities could be made more attractive for employees through flexibility, cost coverage, clear career prospects and recognition in the form of bonuses.
What political measures do you think are necessary to structurally promote further training in the engineering sector?
Industrial policy investments also absolutely need a qualification strategy. Politics must create the framework conditions for lifelong learning to be anchored and valued in society. Tax incentives can help to promote further training, but funding structures should also be simplified, for example by bundling qualification funding and through standardized and simplified application processes. In addition, immigration of skilled workers and qualifications should be interlinked. Reskilling must be seen as a key factor for a sustainable Germany.
Info
How is the job market for engineers developing?
According to the Engineering Monitor 2025/III published at the end of January by the German Economic Institute, the economically difficult situation in the industry is noticeable in engineering and IT professions. Accordingly, in the third quarter of 2025, the total number of vacancies fell by almost a quarter (23 percent) to 99,470 compared to the previous year. The differences between the sectors are significant: In metal processing, slightly more engineers were sought than in the previous year. However, there was a decline of almost 38 percent in IT professions and a good 25 percent fewer vacancies in engineering professions in the areas of plastics production and the chemical industry.
Unemployment among engineers is also increasing: in the third quarter of 2025, an average of 57,519 people were looking for a job in engineering or IT professions, an increase in unemployment of 17.6 percent compared to the previous year. Unemployment rose particularly sharply in technical research and production control (almost -34 percent) and in the engineering professions of mechanical and vehicle technology (almost -28 percent).
Christina Petrick-Löhr is responsible for the Talent & Learning magazine section as well as reporting on training and further education. She is also responsible for the editorial planning of various special human resources publications as well as the German Human Resources Prize.
