SITEC-Sieber Engineering AG

Important discussions were sometimes conducted through proxies. Instead of addressing the root causes of problems and establishing appropriate leadership structures, I often had the impression that employees were replaced rather than the actual problems being addressed. In my view, employees were not always treated equally either. Rules were sometimes applied inconsistently. One example was cell phone use, where certain individuals had significantly more leeway than others. For an extended period, I was required to hand over my cell phone, while other employees were allowed to commit the same—or even more frequent—violations. The only explanation given was that I had been “caught.” The situation was similar with breaks: While some employees were reprimanded for even the slightest deviations, others were regularly allowed to take several extra minutes of break time without any consequences. Many employees noticed these differences, which led to a feeling of unequal treatment. I found it particularly unfortunate that one sometimes got the impression that certain employees were receiving preferential treatment, while others were dealt with much more strictly. Instead of prioritizing performance, fairness, and objective evaluations, there was often a sense that personal preferences played a bigger role than they should have. The high turnover rate also speaks for itself. During my time at the company, there were several resignations. Instead of seriously examining the causes of dissatisfaction or conflicts, one often had the feeling that the company preferred to simply replace staff. Professionally, the company has potential. However, my experience in terms of people and organization was disappointing. Anyone who values fairness, open communication, equal treatment, and competent leadership should think carefully before choosing this employer.

As a former long-time employee, I unfortunately cannot recommend this company. During my time at SITEC, I had the impression that many problems within the company were ignored or not taken seriously. When conflicts arose between employees, in my view they were often not resolved directly and professionally. Instead of bringing the people involved together to hear both sides, I often felt that opinions had already been formed in advance. Another issue that bothered me was the way communication was handled within the company. In my experience, statements made by individual employees were sometimes passed on without verification and treated as facts. Instead of clarifying situations directly with the people involved and hearing both sides, it sometimes happened that people were criticized or reprimanded based on statements from third parties without first being given the opportunity to present their side of the story. I also had the impression that people often talked about employees instead of talking with them. At times, colleagues were gossiped about or their behavior was discussed, rather than addressing problems directly and objectively. This led to unnecessary tensions and a climate in which trust and open interaction were difficult to achieve. In my experience, the work environment was characterized by cliques, gossip, and unprofessional communication. Anyone who didn’t belong to certain groups quickly became an outsider. Criticism or pointed out problematic behavior of individual employees was often ignored; in fact, it could even lead to you suddenly being viewed as the problem yourself. I found the leadership culture particularly disappointing. The CEO was virtually unreachable for many employees and, in my view, showed little interest in personally addressing their concerns.