Human resources departments typically join strategic discussions late, if at all. They handle payroll, manage recruitment, and occasionally organise training programmes. Business leaders make decisions; HR executes them. This traditional division has defined corporate life for decades.
At Siemens India, which employs thousands across manufacturing facilities and offices, the company claims something different. “I’ve worked in many organisations, but I’m proud to say that at Siemens, HR is at the table much earlier than elsewhere,” says Shilpa Kabra Maheshwari, EVP and country head of people and organisation. “No business review, no strategy discussion, no workforce planning happens without HR involvement.”
If accurate, this represents a significant shift—HR as strategic partner rather than administrative function. Whether such integration genuinely drives better business outcomes or simply reflects corporate reorganisation charts remains an open question. But Siemens’ approach to workforce evolution, particularly around AI adoption and skills development, offers insights into how established manufacturers navigate technological disruption.
The strategic integration challenge
Traditional manufacturing companies face a peculiar problem. Their business models evolved around predictable production cycles, stable skill requirements, and long employee tenures. Digital transformation, AI adoption, and rapidly shifting customer demands have upended these assumptions.
“The role of HR has not changed just today; it’s been changing over the years. What stands out now is the ability to partner with business for growth and scale.”
Shilpa Kabra Maheshwari, EVP and country head of people & organisation, Siemens India
Siemens operates across power generation, industrial automation, and infrastructure—sectors where engineering expertise remains paramount but increasingly requires digital fluency. The company must maintain deep technical knowledge whilst building capabilities in AI, data analytics, and automation.
“The role of HR has not changed just today; it’s been changing over the years,” Maheshwari notes. “What stands out now is the ability to partner with business for growth and scale.” She argues that HR conversations have shifted from tactical concerns—payroll adjustments, hiring targets—to strategic priorities around leadership development, competency building, and organisational transformation.
This sounds progressive, though sceptics might question whether HR’s elevated status reflects genuine strategic influence or simply fashionable repositioning. Many companies claim strategic HR integration whilst HR departments remain marginalised in actual decision-making.
AI as tool, not threat
Perhaps more substantive is Siemens’ approach to artificial intelligence. Rather than treating AI as purely a cost-reduction tool or workforce replacement mechanism, the company frames it as capability enhancement. “AI is knocking on the doors—there’s no world without AI, and we have to be prepared,” Maheshwari says.
Siemens has deployed AI across multiple HR functions. The My Learning World Platform, launched in 2020, offers personalised learning paths adapting to individual styles and career aspirations. AI-enabled recruitment and internal mobility portals optimise candidate matching and skill recommendations. Chatbots simplify access to HR policies, whilst hackathons encourage employees to develop AI solutions for both internal processes and customer applications.
This multi-pronged deployment suggests genuine commitment rather than pilot programmes designed primarily for external communications. However, the actual impact remains unclear. Does AI-powered learning acceleration translate into measurably better performance? Do optimised recruitment matches reduce turnover or improve productivity? Siemens doesn’t provide concrete metrics beyond claiming “increased internal mobility” and “reduced external hiring needs.”
More intriguingly, the company emphasises employee involvement in AI deployment. Digital literacy programmes and co-creation initiatives aim to position technology as “career accelerator rather than threat.” This human-centric framing addresses legitimate employee concerns about automation displacing jobs—though whether such messaging genuinely reduces anxiety or simply provides reassuring rhetoric is difficult to assess.
The agility imperative
Siemens has made workforce agility a priority, focusing on cross-functional collaboration and streamlined decision-making. “Agility for us means cutting the barriers in the way teams function,” Maheshwari explains. “Cross-functional teams come together quickly to co-create solutions, and businesses collaborate to deliver one Siemens to the customer.”
This emphasis on removing internal friction reflects common challenges in large, established organisations where departmental silos and approval hierarchies slow responsiveness. Whether Siemens has genuinely dismantled such barriers or simply encouraged faster coordination within existing structures isn’t entirely clear.
The company points to regular leadership forums and internal conferences reinforcing agility principles. Such initiatives signal organisational priorities, though translating leadership messaging into actual operational behaviour proves notoriously difficult. Many corporations announce agile transformations that remain largely aspirational.
Leadership development for complexity
Perhaps Siemens’ most concrete initiative is structured leadership development addressing hybrid work, multi-generational teams, and technological disruption. The People Leader Programme, a six-month initiative launched two years ago, incorporates neuroscience-based cognitive assessments, virtual team management training, and 360-degree feedback.
A complementary programme, Elevate, targets mid-level managers—often the organisational layer where transformation efforts stall. These managers must implement strategic directives whilst managing day-to-day operations and team concerns.
The programmes sound comprehensive, though their actual effectiveness remains difficult to evaluate externally. Siemens claims they prepare leaders for “complexities of hybrid teams, technological disruption, and multi-generational workforces,” but such outcomes resist easy measurement. Do participants actually lead more effectively, or do they simply complete training requirements?
More tellingly, the company’s emphasis on external insights alongside internal expertise suggests recognition that Siemens cannot solve all leadership challenges through existing knowledge. This willingness to look beyond organisational boundaries may prove more valuable than specific programme content.
Skills development at scale
Siemens maintains multiple upskilling initiatives including the Game Changer Programme for next-generation leaders, Core Learning Paths for technical and leadership development, and Potential Development Programmes focused on emerging technologies.
The company reports that personalised learning has “accelerated skill acquisition” and improved “project delivery efficiency, innovation rates and overall business performance.” Such claims would benefit from concrete data—percentage improvements in delivery times, specific innovation examples, or quantified performance gains—but none are provided.
More substantively, Siemens notes rising voluntary participation in development programmes, which suggests employees find value beyond mandatory compliance. If programmes merely fulfilled training requirements without genuine benefit, voluntary engagement would likely remain minimal.
The question remains whether such elaborate development frameworks genuinely build capabilities faster than traditional approaches, or whether they primarily formalise learning that would happen naturally through experience and on-the-job problem-solving.
The human-technology balance
Underlying Siemens’ various initiatives is a stated philosophy that “technology enhances human potential” whilst “human insight, creativity and collaboration remain at the heart of sustainable organisational success.”
This sounds like standard corporate messaging about valuing people, but Siemens’ actual investments—AI learning labs in factories, curated generative AI programmes with human oversight, emphasis on employee co-creation—suggest some genuine commitment to maintaining human agency within technological transformation.
The real test comes during economic pressure, when training budgets and development programmes face scrutiny. Many companies embrace human-centric rhetoric during growth periods, then revert to cost-cutting and efficiency drives when margins compress.
Maheshwari emphasises that “foundations for us have always been humanly centred, enabled by technology.” Whether this represents enduring cultural priority or simply current strategic emphasis will become clear only through sustained commitment across business cycles.
Strategic HR or strategic messaging?
Siemens India’s approach offers an intriguing case study in how established manufacturers attempt workforce transformation. The early HR integration in strategy discussions, emphasis on AI as capability enhancement, structured leadership development, and skills programmes all suggest thoughtful planning.
Whether such initiatives genuinely create competitive advantage versus representing competent execution of known practices remains unclear. The company’s claims about improved performance, increased agility, and enhanced innovation would benefit from concrete evidence beyond assertions.
More fundamentally, Siemens faces the challenge confronting all established firms: balancing deep existing expertise with rapidly evolving technological requirements. The company’s various programmes attempt to build new capabilities whilst preserving institutional knowledge—a difficult balance that no framework can fully resolve.
For now, Siemens demonstrates that large manufacturers can articulate comprehensive responses to workforce transformation challenges. Whether such responses translate into sustained competitive advantage will depend less on programme design than on execution consistency and genuine cultural change—outcomes that reveal themselves over years, not quarters.