• Home
  • /
  • Insights
  • /
  • How Siemens Healthcare Fixed Lead Quality by Fixing the System (Not Adding Automation)

Click to play

Siemens Healthcare wasn’t short on leads. They were short on trust between marketing and sales — and adding more automation was making it worse, not better.

Published: June 30, 2025  
Updated: March 19, 2026

min read

Most B2B organizations don’t have a lead problem. They have a trust problem.

At Siemens Healthcare, that truth showed up painfully fast.

When Debbie Pryer stepped into her role as Program Manager for Lead Generation and Management, she inherited a system that looked successful on paper—thousands of leads flowing in—but was quietly breaking the relationship between Sales and Service.

Quick Answer: What Went Wrong with Siemens’ Original Lead Program?

Siemens Healthcare didn’t have a lead generation problem. They had a lead quality and trust problem. Incentives rewarded volume, not relevance, which overwhelmed sales, broke credibility, and forced a full redesign of their lead management process.

The Problem: Lead Volume Without Trust

Siemens Healthcare is not a small organization. With highly regulated products, long buying cycles, and complex sales motions, lead quality matters far more than lead quantity.

Yet the system in place rewarded volume.

  • Service engineers were incentivized to submit as many leads as possible
  • Sales teams were overwhelmed with low-quality, poorly qualified leads
  • 65% of submitted leads were rejected

The result wasn’t just inefficiency—it was erosion of trust.

Sales stopped believing in the leads. Service felt ignored. Marketing was stuck in the middle, absorbing frustration from every direction.

Automation didn’t fix it. In fact, it made things worse.

“If You Automate a Broken Process, You Just Get an Automated Problem”

One of the most important decisions Debbie made was not to add another shiny lead management tool.

Instead, she stepped back and asked a better question:

How do we design a lead system that works the way Sales and Service actually work?

That mindset shift mirrors what I’ve written about repeatedly:

The answer wasn’t more automation. It was better system design.

The Insight: Service Engineers Already Had the Signal

Siemens’ service engineers were in customer facilities every day.

They knew:

  • When equipment was aging
  • When departments were expanding
  • When hospitals were exploring new capabilities

The problem wasn’t access to insight. It was how that insight entered the system.

The Fix: Slide Leads Into Existing Workflows

Instead of forcing people into external systems and manual approvals, Debbie rebuilt the lead flow around existing internal platforms.

Leads were:

  • Integrated directly into Sales workflows
  • Tied to real opportunities, not button clicks
  • Paid out only when revenue was proven

Most importantly, leads were required to meet pre-qualification criteria defined by Sales leadership.

If those criteria weren’t met, the lead never reached Sales.

That single decision did more to rebuild trust than any technology ever could.

Change Management Was the Real Work

The hardest part wasn’t systems. It was behavior.

In the old model, submitting a lead could trigger a reward within 24 hours.

In the new system:

  • Rewards were tied to actual deals
  • Payouts followed the real sales cycle
  • Training became mandatory

This required a massive internal communication effort:

  • Mandatory training for Service and Sales
  • Clear definitions of “what a quality lead looks like”
  • Ongoing feedback loops and performance reporting

This aligns directly with what I’ve written about what lead nurturing really is—and isn’t.

The Results That Actually Mattered

Siemens didn’t celebrate higher lead counts. They tracked better signals.

  • Lead volume dropped from 12–15k to ~5–6k
  • Net-new opportunity creation increased from 39% to 46%
  • Lead rejection rates fell from 65% to ~25%
  • Sales committed to acting on leads within two weeks

But the most important outcome wasn’t in a dashboard.

Sales and Service began trusting the system again.

What This Case Really Teaches

This wasn’t a marketing automation win.

It was a systems win.

It reinforces a lesson I see repeatedly in complex B2B environments:

You don’t fix lead problems by pushing harder. You fix them by designing better handoffs, clearer qualification, and shared accountability.

If this story resonates, you may also want to read:

Because in complex sales, trust is the real conversion metric.

Get GTM Clarity Updates 

Short, practical emails on buyer friction, lead management, and GTM system issues that slow revenue.

💡No hype. No noise. Clarity your team can actually use.

Brian Carroll is the founder of Markempa, host of the B2B Roundtable Podcast, and author of Lead Generation for the Complex Sale (McGraw-Hill). He is a Certified GTM OS Partner and runs the GTM Clarity Roundtable, a community of 20,000+ B2B sales, marketing, and GTM professionals.

Brian works with leadership teams at established B2B companies with complex sales to identify what’s limiting growth, align on what to fix, and help their teams make the change.

Subscribe to Brian’s GTM Clarity Newsletter on LinkedIn