Siemens' Simple Structure

Case Study: Siemen’s simple structure—not
Question one: When the manager is tring to restructured company have to consider not just the results are beneficial to the company, but also take into account the employee can accept such adjustment, as a part of the company, they also have to face these changes, if employees cannot adapt to these changes, then the program will also make the company's working efficiency low.

Question two: In this case we can see, the new structure of Kleinfeld reduces bureaucracy to ensure more rapid decision-making, get rid of underperformence business, simplified corporate structure. These measures can effectively improve the efficiency of company, but these measures, some of impersonal. In contrast, the restructuring of Loscher is more effective, more humane, which is why the two sides had their differences and argument.
Question three: I think this view is wrong. The two managers mentioned in this case is to restructure the company, the colleagues think that the two schemes are not to be trusted, but the fact is, one of the parties in the reorganization and no damage to the company, and not a lot of controversy in the employee's situation, on the company's efficiency to achieve some improvement. Many people think that the reorganization of the company is useless and dangerous. Indeed, reorganization of a company does exist great risk, but in a good plan and decision support, a company can take on an altogether new aspect, to play a greater efficiency, this is an opportunity and a challenge to any problems faced by the company. So, can not easily determine all reorganization is good or bad.

Question four: Whether a manager takes the well-being of employees into account or not, this factor should be considered. The case of Kleinfeid is just an example of this. His restructuring efforts have generated more controversy than Loscher’s is actually because the changes he made are thinking less about employee’s well-being. Therefore