High workload, no support - Clinician Sonova Employee Review

2.0
14 Dec 2025
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Hours are good if you keep boundaries and do not work through lunch. Benefits and RRSP matching are great

Cons

They (Sonova/Connect Hearing) have switched to only caring about metrics, and so purposely understaff clinics to cut costs, causing a lot of stress on staff and clients. From years of developing a more medicalized hearing care, which was thorough but included very inefficient systems, the company has now shifted to a retail mindset, but so far the other way, too fast. It’s like all the good that was built in this company with past managing directors has now been taken over and is not being made better, but dismantled and created in the new visions of the most recent MD and CEO. Change is good, but some of the changes at Connect Hearing are quite rapid and negative for the clients. They receive way less clinician facing time with their purchase, as an over-the-counter style of dispensing is to be the new norm and expectation. This is touted as great for the clients, but clinicians know the college requirements needed to properly dispense hearing aids and a same day fit is just not a blanket solution- but the pressure to do it is real. There is also no coverage, expect that you may be working isolated and alone with little support. Expect upset customers due to lack of staff and lack of appointment availability in the calendars. Middle managers are not industry trained or even trained in sales, so provide very little to the experience other than adding stress and pressure to an already stressful environment.

Explore other reviews about Sonova

5.0
27 Mar 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Well structured organization good benefits.

Cons

not much of a con

2.0
15 May 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

At a global level, the company has a strong mission and a well‑articulated set of values. What I observed, though, is that the translation of those values into day‑to‑day leadership behaviors varied significantly by region. In Switzerland, leadership seemed more aligned with the long‑term vision — communication was clearer, expectations were consistent, and decisions reflected the stated values. In North America, the operational reality didn’t always match the mission on paper. Some of the leadership behaviors, priorities, and communication patterns were more reactive and short‑term, which created a gap between the company’s stated culture and the lived experience.

Cons

In the North American organization, there was a noticeable absence of cohesive leadership. Department leaders often operated in silos and, at times, undermined one another rather than aligning around shared goals. Challenges were frequently attributed to other teams instead of being addressed collaboratively, which made it difficult to build momentum or drive solutions. Information flow was inconsistent as well — critical details were sometimes withheld until escalated publicly, and the lack of transparency created unnecessary friction. As a result, individuals who attempted to step in, create clarity, or demonstrate leadership were not always supported, which ultimately discouraged proactive problem‑solving. The experience highlighted the importance of leadership teams that model collaboration, share information openly, and create an environment where people feel empowered to contribute.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All