Thread regarding Siemens layoffs

@1gf Also, Jasmine, who was responsible for the Partner / distributor management system, and LYY, who has already left the company, should not be forgotten.

Therefore, the relevant people responsible for Partner management should not be excluded from any review. This should include Jasmine, as well as LYY, who has already left the company. Both should be included in an independent review of the Partner management system. The purpose should not be to target individuals for the sake of it, but to answer several basic questions: Were channel rules enforced fairly? Were distributor resources and authorizations allocated transparently? Why did cross-region dumping and pricing disruption persist for so long? Did the relevant managers truly fulfill their governance responsibilities? Were there any conflicts of interest, selective enforcement, or management failures?

If the company only investigates frontline sales while avoiding the Partner management system itself, then so-called channel governance will become nothing more than a superficial exercise. The real issue is not whether a few salespeople achieved their targets, but whether the entire channel ecosystem has been eroded by opaque, unfair, and unaccountable management practices over time.

@1gm From the perspective of global layoffs and organizational restructuring, it is highly unlikely that China will remain untouched.

Siemens China has a large employee base, a complex organizational structure, and a relatively large number of functional and support roles. Therefore, if Siemens pushes forward large-scale cost reduction, organizational streamlining, or workforce optimization globally, China will likely have to absorb a significant share of the pressure. In particular, under the combined impact of slower business growth, margin pressure, and the rapid rise of AI tools, roles that are repetitive, process-driven, reporting-oriented, and distant from customers and orders are likely to face greater risk.

However, what truly needs to be adjusted should not be only frontline employees. The management structure of Siemens China needs a real reshuffle.

Many of the problems exposed in China over the past few years were not created by frontline employees. They were the result of bloated management layers, imbalanced leadership appointments, opaque resource allocation, inefficient internal collaboration, and excessive formalism. If the final outcome is simply to cut execution-level employees while keeping the people who created the problems, then so-called cost reduction and efficiency improvement will become nothing more than another downward transfer of pressure.

In my view, frontline sales roles are relatively less likely to be directly affected. The reason is simple: salespeople remain closest to customers, orders, and cash flow. Frontline roles that can generate revenue, maintain customer relationships, and drive project execution still hold irreplaceable value for the company.

By contrast, functional, support, coordination, and reporting-oriented roles are more likely to be affected by the combined forces of AI and organizational streamlining. Many tasks that used to rely on manual data consolidation, slide preparation, information collection, process coordination, and repeated internal alignment may increasingly be replaced or reduced by automation tools, AI assistants, and flatter organizational structures.

Therefore, if this round of restructuring does happen, the focus should not be on cutting people by simple ratios. The company should instead answer a basic question: which roles truly create customer value, and which roles mainly create processes, reports, and internal friction?

If Siemens truly wants to improve efficiency, it should protect frontline employees who are close to the market and create real business results, while reducing inefficient management layers, eliminating redundant support roles, and carrying out a genuine structural reshuffle of the China management team.

Why the comment zone is mainly about Siemens China? How would the 20,000 layoffs distributed? Thanks.

Regarding the management issues across several BUs in China over the past years, many employees have their own understanding of what happened.

At the employee level, there has long been a perception that during the WHB era, relatively fixed networks of management influence and interest representation were formed across several key BUs. For example, YDH in MC & MTS, ZXL in FA, and WB in CS have often been perceived by employees as key figures closely connected to the senior power structure at that time.

Nobody wants to present unverified internal rumors as established facts. However, the fact that such perceptions have persisted for so long already shows that there are serious concerns within the organization regarding the transparency of leadership appointments, resource allocation, project decisions, and potential interest relationships.

What the company should really pay attention to is not merely a few individual names, but the governance issues reflected behind these perceptions. Why have certain individuals remained in key positions through different rounds of organizational restructuring? Why have core resources and decision-making power in some BUs appeared to remain concentrated within a small number of fixed circles? Why do many frontline employees feel that capability, performance, and professional experience are not the real determining factors for job security and career opportunities?

If the company truly wants to rebuild trust among employees in China, it cannot stop at personnel changes or new slogans. It should conduct a systematic review of past leadership appointments, project flows, supplier relationships, channel resource allocation, and potential conflicts of interest across key BUs.

Employees are not asking for a witch hunt. What they want is a basic answer: have the old management circles, interest networks, and protective power structures truly been dismantled? And will the new organization genuinely return to a path of fairness, professionalism, transparency, and compliance?

@1fw When the economy is rising, prosperity can cover up almost everything. When business is growing, the organization appears peaceful and successful. Management can package market tailwinds as personal capability, describe industry cycles as strategic victories, and attribute the hard work of frontline employees to their own leadership.
But when the business comes under real pressure, when growth slows and profits shrink, the problems that have long been hidden beneath the surface begin to emerge all at once. Factional culture, rent-seeking behavior, imbalanced resource allocation, management incompetence, and avoidance of responsibility all become exposed under pressure.
When times are good, everyone talks about vision, culture, and success stories. When times are difficult, the true level of an organization’s governance, management principles, and leadership logic is finally revealed.
To put it bluntly: in good times, everything looks harmonious; in hard times, chaos reveals itself. And the ones who suffer the most are always the people at the bottom — those closest to customers and most responsible for delivering real results.

@1fw 哪来的傻逼？

I read all comments up to now. I feel that comments from Siemens China are just typical complaints when biz is going low. They would never mention how happy they were when they were in good years.

Power structure of any company is same as an autocratic country, power top down not bottom up. I think Siemens China employees must be used to the mechanism and outcome in their day to day life with their officials. If they complain about the employer, I guess they have a better object to complain about. They don’t own the company but they own their country.

@1dv The controversies surrounding WB’s management style and potential conflicts of interest seem to have been discussed for quite some time. As for his relationship with JHH, do people think it might be closer than that of a typical manager and subordinate? Also, has anyone heard the rumors about MQ allegedly “paying to secure a promotion”?

the drama here is even more interesting than Trump’s posts.

I have to admit, the stories from China are always the most dramatic.

@1e2 Thanks for sharing the information. If the allegations described are accurate, they would suggest serious governance and compliance issues at the management level, which is quite shocking.

@1dz The following are merely my personal guesses based on limited information and should not be taken as verified facts:

• WHB: possibly Wang Hai Bin
• WB: possibly Wang Biao
• XJ: possibly Xia Ji
• JHH: possibly Ji Hui Hang
• YDH: possibly Yang Da Han
  Since only initials are used and multiple Chinese names can share similar pinyin combinations, these interpretations are for reference only and may not reflect the actual individuals involved. Colleagues with relevant background knowledge are welcome to provide additional context.

@1e0 If that’s the case, China really is more complicated than I thought.

@1dr I apologize if this comes across as offensive; that is certainly not my intention. Out of curiosity, I looked into the subject and learned that traditional Islamic teachings generally prohibit the consumption of alcohol and alcoholic beverages. I wonder whether there are different interpretations or practices within the cultural and religious context of China. I also have a broader question: when personal beliefs come into conflict with professional, social, or practical considerations, how do people usually reconcile the two? In some circumstances, is it considered acceptable for believers to make choices that are not entirely consistent with their faith for the sake of work or social obligations?

@1dy I assume these abbreviations refer to members of the management team in China. I tried looking through the organizational structure on Teams and found that most of the individuals mentioned appear to be from DI China Sales. However, because only initials are used and Chinese naming conventions differ from Western ones, it is difficult to identify the exact individuals involved. I hope colleagues from DI China who are familiar with the situation can provide some additional context. Stay strong, colleagues in DI China — respect from the US.

I’m a bit confused. Could any colleagues in China help explain the relationships between these letters? Like WB and YDH.

Damn, I thought Siemens AG in the US was a staple of incompetence and corruption, but you guys in China are at another level !

DI China is crazy.

WB has reportedly brought his children to internal gatherings, during which his daughter received gifts or favors from sales personnel. Were these activities properly disclosed in accordance with the company’s compliance requirements? In cases involving benefits provided to employees’ family members, were the necessary conflict-of-interest disclosure procedures followed and reviewed by the compliance department?

@1d 2B honest, YDH is good at drinking :)

Did WHB and WB follow the company’s established internship recruitment procedures when arranging internships for their children at DI China? Were these positions openly posted, subject to standardized screening and fair competition, and handled in accordance with the company’s policies regarding conflicts of interest and nepotism? More importantly, can these arrangements withstand compliance review and public scrutiny?

While competitors—particularly Inovance—are advancing aggressively and continuing to erode our market share, much of our organization’s energy is being consumed by so-called “reforms.” These reforms have increasingly become a pretext for internal political struggles, with key positions being filled by loyalists in pursuit of personal and factional interests.

For years, WB has relied on initiatives such as “Wendao,” “Lundao,” and the “Learn-Practice-Question-Speak-Teach” framework—activities that are highly detached from practical business and, in some cases, carry elements of personality cult and feudal-style hierarchy—to exert pressure on frontline sales teams. Endless reviews and PUA-style management are portrayed as “strengthening management.” Salespeople are forced to spend enormous amounts of time preparing one-off PowerPoint slides, and are even expected to flatter WB publicly and express gratitude for his “mentorship.” One cannot help but ask: is DI China a modern enterprise, or an organization sustained by ideological control?

At meetings attended by WHB, simply ending the presentation with an image reminiscent of historical propaganda—celebrating the Chinese Communist Party or evoking the spirit of the Great Leap Forward—together with slogans such as “Roll up our sleeves and work harder,” is often enough to earn his approval. Against such an intense atmosphere of political symbolism, one has to wonder whether DI China can still be regarded as a technology-driven German industrial company.

YDH continues to organize so-called “fireside talks” among his core followers. He portrays himself as a devout Muslim with pure faith, yet openly drinks alcohol despite the religious prohibitions. We respect all religious beliefs, but it is difficult for people to genuinely respect someone who constantly speaks of faith while acting in contradiction to the principles he professes.

优化后的中文

当竞争对手，尤其是汇川技术（Inovance）高歌猛进、持续蚕食市场份额之际，我们却将大量精力消耗在所谓的“改革”上，并借改革之名展开内部权力斗争，在关键岗位安插亲信，以谋取个人及小团体利益。

WB长期通过“问道”“论道”以及“学、练、问、说、讲”等极度务虚、甚至带有个人崇拜和封建色彩的活动，对基层销售团队进行持续施压。无休止的Review、PUA式管理，被包装成所谓的“强化管理”。一线销售不得不花费大量时间准备一次性的PPT材料，会议上甚至还需要阿谀奉承、感谢WB的“培养”。不禁让人质疑：DI China究竟是一家现代化企业，还是一个依靠精神控制运转的组织？

WHB参加的会议中，只要最后附上一张充满历史宣传风格、歌颂中国共产党或“大跃进”时代色彩浓厚的图片，再配上一句“撸起袖子加油干”之类的口号，往往便能获得其赞赏。在如此浓厚的政治宣传氛围下，不禁令人疑问：DI China是否仍然称得上是一家以技术创新为核心的德国工业企业？

YDH至今仍组织核心追随者频繁开展所谓“围炉夜话”活动。其自诩为虔诚、信仰纯净的穆斯林，却又在日常行为中公然违背相关教义饮酒。我们尊重任何宗教信仰，但对于这种将信仰挂在嘴边、言行不一的人，很难赢得他人的真正认同与尊重。

⸻

English Translation

While competitors—particularly Inovance—are advancing aggressively and continuing to erode our market share, much of our organization’s energy is being consumed by so-called “reforms.” These reforms have increasingly become a pretext for internal political struggles, with key positions being filled by loyalists in pursuit of personal and factional interests.

For years, WB has relied on initiatives such as “Wendao,” “Lundao,” and the “Learn-Practice-Question-Speak-Teach” framework—activities that are highly detached from practical business and, in some cases, carry elements of personality cult and feudal-style hierarchy—to exert pressure on frontline sales teams. Endless reviews and PUA-style management are portrayed as “strengthening management.” Salespeople are forced to spend enormous amounts of time preparing one-off PowerPoint slides, and are even expected to flatter WB publicly and express gratitude for his “mentorship.” One cannot help but ask: is DI China a modern enterprise, or an organization sustained by ideological control?

At meetings attended by WHB, simply ending the presentation with an image reminiscent of historical propaganda—celebrating the Chinese Communist Party or evoking the spirit of the Great Leap Forward—together with slogans such as “Roll up our sleeves and work harder,” is often enough to earn his approval. Against such an intense atmosphere of political symbolism, one has to wonder whether DI China can still be regarded as a technology-driven German industrial company.

YDH continues to organize so-called “fireside talks” among his core followers. He portrays himself as a devout Muslim with pure faith, yet openly drinks alcohol despite the religious prohibitions. We respect all religious beliefs, but it is difficult for people to genuinely respect someone who constantly speaks of faith while acting in contradiction to the principles he professes.

The “artificial prosperity” created by shortages, the OOH driven by excessive stockpiling orders, and the pressure WHB has continued to place on distributors in order to maintain sales performance have been recurring issues over the years. Meanwhile, the margins left to distributors by FA and GMC have been squeezed to the limit.

Cross-regional price dumping remains a persistent problem, and there appears to be no effective mechanism to address such practices. This naturally raises a question: does Jasmine lack the willingness or ability to tackle these issues, or does WHB still retain significant influence behind the scenes?

At this point, PA MI products seem to be among the few areas where frontline sales teams still have some degree of control. Yet controversial figures such as XJ continue to enjoy the trust and support of LSG. Many employees find this not only puzzling, but also both ironic and disheartening.

I’ve been translating some of these Chinese posts. The truth is that the workplace issues faced by colleagues in China are not unique; employees in other countries and regions experience similar problems to varying degrees. At the end of the day, this is a German corporation run for its shareholders and executives, not a company that belongs to you or me.

@1by I couldn’t agree more. The compliance department seems little more than window dressing, and SGES feels like a box-ticking exercise. Otherwise, how do you explain why so many employees from China and the United States choose to speak out anonymously here?

People are simply venting their frustrations here. Does management really pay attention to these discussions? Do they care about the working conditions and well-being of frontline employees in the U.S. and China? Judging by their actions, the stock price appears to be their only real concern. Many employees feel that this mindset has become even more evident since DI began being led by a UK-based management team.

It seems like everyone is sale employee. I wonder how much this round of layoffs will affect SW. In SW, it doesn’t feel that bad

After watching yesterday’s DI China TAM, I couldn’t help but reflect on where we are today.

TAM has jokingly been referred to by many as “The Achim Meeting”. Ironically, that nickname may actually represent a positive sign. Headquarters is making a serious effort to become more involved in what has long been a black box known as DI China. To some extent, this also reflects a lack of confidence in the previous management model.

For years, Siemens DI China operated like a closed empire centered around WHB. Behind the polished presentations and glamorous narratives, many uncomfortable realities were carefully concealed. WHB built what was once considered the DI China empire, but today that empire is showing deep cracks and signs of decline. Some of the people who contributed to these problems still occupy key positions.

The current organizational culture and working atmosphere have deteriorated to an alarming level. SGES, in particular, has become something of a joke: when problems cannot be solved, the people who raise those problems become the targets instead.

There is no shortage of middle managers whose capabilities are far below the responsibilities they hold. Yet through political alignment and skillful upward management, they continue to secure their positions. Employees are constantly subjected to pressure and manipulation, while these managers endlessly glorify their past achievements. At the same time, they remain detached from the front line of the business, offering no meaningful guidance or strategic direction. Their understanding of the business is close to zero, their involvement is close to zero, and much of their decision-making resembles little more than armchair engineering.

Another example is the increasingly questionable management practices surrounding special pricing within PA. XJ appear to have benefited disproportionately from loopholes and irregularities in instrument-related pricing policies, while the system itself lacks sufficient transparency and accountability.

What DI China needs today is not more slogans, PowerPoint presentations, or self-congratulation. It needs accountability, transparency, leaders who understand the business firsthand, and a culture that rewards competence rather than politics.

Otherwise, no amount of restructuring or headquarters intervention will be enough to reverse the decline.

It is exaggerate to say that hundreds of employees are resigning everyday, but it is true that the attrition is strong and the best employees have left over the past 2 years. And so far, they are just replaced with interns or very young people out of their degree and who were struggling to find a first job. But without seniors to lead the activity, it is doomed to fail. It is also true that the nepotism is rampant in this company. In the US the managers are young people in their 20ies and sent from Germany. They have 0 experience in management, at doing business, and just basically knowing how things works in the US ecosystem. There was an infamous case in Technology where the young manager was the daughter of someone from the board or something like that.

Anyone from the Digital industry Software division can give an view on how are things there?

Move on!! Everyone is resigning in the United States. They know layoffs are coming. Siemens is a mess of a company.

We must stand together as people and not let these CEOs and Nepotism throughout our countries dictate the future of our financial well being. What these appointed leaders are doing to us is wrong on all level. All for the profit and alignment of there luxury lifestyles while we the people suffer. Enough is enough and we must have enough integrity to stand up against this corruption. Siemens has extorted massive amounts of profits for over 100 years through the government alignment and private sector exploitation. We can no longer stand for big companies dictating our well being and need to take a stand as a global economic movement to stop this once and for all. If we continue to feed this system the system will only continue to fail us. No person for that matter should have to sacrifice their mental health and well being for these people who care nothing about anything except profits and financial gain. Enough is enough and we must stand together as a whole to put an end to this system of corruption and capitalism at the expense of our hard working and dedicated lives.

Try working in the US Branches. They are littered with horrific managers who have no right being in management positions. Employees are resigning by the hundreds daily. They know what's coming. Trying to get ahead of their careers instead of letting Siemens destroy their opportunities. It's beyond disappointing.

No more manufacturing in China and no more slave labor in India and South America. United we stand against this German regime. We must stand up for ourselves. Enough is enough.

China is not in support of Siemens

This is a satirical community, but after the jokes, does any Siemens management actually see this content? Whether Siemens genuinely cares about voices from all regions and frontline employees is questionable. The annual SGES survey is inflated—employees are afraid to speak honestly because they believe their feedback won't make a difference and fear offending senior management. Therefore, it's doubtful whether Siemens truly values authentic input.

I sincerely hope that YXN can drive a truly meaningful organizational reset.

I am not sure whether colleagues overseas have heard about the long-standing internal rumors surrounding certain recently departed senior leaders. These unverified but widely discussed rumors involve questions around overseas assets, sources of funds, and potential compliance concerns. Whether these rumors are ultimately substantiated or not, the company should not simply ignore them. The very fact that such rumors have persisted already shows that employees have developed serious doubts about the integrity, transparency, and accountability mechanisms surrounding senior management.

A responsible organization should not respond by asking employees to remain silent, nor by treating every question as negative emotion. It should respond through an independent, transparent, and serious compliance review, and provide the organization with a clear answer.

If YXN truly wants to rebuild trust in the China organization, the starting point must be the most fundamental issues: clean up unhealthy legacy management practices, break down small circles and relationship networks, rebuild credibility in leadership appointments, and restore frontline employees’ confidence in fairness, rules, and professionalism.

Let's see.

As a frontline sales employee in DI China, I feel I also have to say something.

The people who suffer the most, carry the heaviest burden, and are drained the most are always the frontline employees at the bottom. Corporate strategy keeps changing, organizational structures are repeatedly adjusted, and management talks about transformation, collaboration, and growth in meetings. But in the end, all the pressure is passed down layer by layer to frontline sales. We are the ones who carry the targets, visit the customers, defend the prices, and clean up channel conflicts. Yet when there is credit, it may not belong to the frontline; when there is blame, it almost certainly lands on the frontline.

What many frontline sales colleagues feel today is that management is becoming increasingly disconnected from the real market, while the people below are becoming more and more like exhausted execution machines.

In particular, at the Sales Channel level, there have long been concerns among employees regarding compliance and interest relationships. Questions about whether certain Sales Channel Heads may be involved in non-transparent benefit arrangements, unfair allocation of channel resources, opaque position appointments, or even rumors of “buying and selling positions” are no longer just isolated private complaints. They have become concerns increasingly shared by many frontline employees. Whether these rumors are ultimately substantiated or not, the company should not continue to avoid them. A responsible organization should conduct an independent, transparent, and systematic review of channel governance, customer ownership, leadership appointments, conflict-of-interest declarations, and the flow of related expenses.

What is even more discouraging for frontline sales is that some managers occupy key customers and critical resources while pushing higher targets and more complicated internal processes down to the grassroots level. How are customer resources allocated? Is there fairness across regions? Are channel interests transparent? Why do some people hold premium customers and key projects for a long time, while those who truly run the market and carry the targets can only passively accept the outcome? Frontline sales are not blind to these questions. We understand what is happening. Many people simply do not dare to speak up.

As for regional SAC and Vertical functions, many frontline sales employees currently see their actual support value as very limited. In theory, these organizations should help sales connect resources, solve customer issues, drive industry breakthroughs, and coordinate products and channels. In reality, however, they often function more like management interfaces that collect assignments and chase performance: asking for data, plans, visit records, pipeline updates, forecasts, and PowerPoint slides, while rarely helping the frontline solve the real issues around pricing, delivery, technical support, channel conflicts, and customer progress.

What frontline sales need is not more templates, more meetings, or more reporting formats. We need support that can actually land. We need people who help solve customer problems, not people who only sit in the back office and chase results. We need people who coordinate resources, not people who only ask us to update spreadsheets. We need people who take management responsibility, not people who simply push all pressure to the frontline.

The dissatisfaction today is not because frontline sales are unwilling to fight, nor because we are afraid of pressure. Salespeople are never afraid of visiting customers, carrying targets, or facing competition. What is truly disappointing is this: when internal resource allocation lacks transparency, leadership appointments lack credibility, support functions fail to provide effective support, and management only knows how to push tasks downward, the morale and trust of frontline employees are gradually exhausted.

If the company truly wants growth, it should first return to common sense: respect the frontline, protect fairness, clean up the gray areas, and provide real support to those who actually create business results, instead of continuing to make grassroots employees pay the price for chaotic management, imbalanced resources, and an organization that keeps spinning in circles.

This is sad what they did in China and South America. Massive exits in US as well. People have had enough