An Insider’s View on Alibaba’s Struggles
He wrote this before leaving Alibaba. It went viral.
Earlier this month, a 10,000-word letter posted on Alibaba’s internal forum1 by a long-time employee just before his resignation went viral across the Chinese internet. Drawing on his firsthand experience working on multiple projects across different business units, the letter candidly exposed both internal and external challenges facing Alibaba in recent years. It got a response and praise from Jack Ma himself, and many Alibaba employees commented below a video posted by the author on RedNote saying they watched it with tears.
However, I noticed that this incident received little attention from Western media or hasn’t been covered by Substacks that focus on the Chinese market. So I decided to translate it by myself (with the help of ChatGPT)2 and share it here. I've also included a few footnotes and figures to help clarify and contextualize the content.
I believe my translation could be valuable for many of my subscribers who invest in China but can’t read Chinese. Whether you’re interested in Alibaba, the e-commerce sector, or simply curious about the local dynamics in China over the past few years, I think you’ll find this letter insightful.
What’s my take on Alibaba’s situation after reading this letter? At first glance, many of its problems seem tied to the broader slowdown in China’s economy—so in theory, if the economy rebounds, Alibaba should too. But interestingly, in a follow-up interview, the author of the letter offered an insightful disagreement:3
I don't think they actually read my post carefully — or maybe they didn’t understand it — because we’re not even talking on the same level. They’re saying that as long as the company finds a new growth direction, the problem will be solved. But what I’m asking is: what kind of company is actually capable of seizing new growth opportunities in the first place? Alibaba has missed several major opportunities in the past — why did that happen? That’s what I’m trying to explore.
They argue that growth can cure the symptoms of a large, sluggish company. But the very problem is that this kind of organizational disease is precisely what makes it hard to find real growth. They’re focused on treating the symptoms, while I’m trying to understand and address the root cause.
In fact, I believe the dilemma Alibaba faces is a miniature of the broader challenges confronting China today. On one hand, China urgently needs a new growth model to move beyond the increasingly excessive competitions across industries and the widespread sense of involution (内卷) felt across all social classes. On the other hand, if resources and energy continue to be wasted on cutthroat, inefficient competition, it will become increasingly difficult for the country to innovate and unlock new sources of growth. It’s a vicious cycle—and breaking out of it will require effort from both sides.
As for Alibaba, the very fact that this letter was openly circulated on its internal forum4—and acknowledged by Jack Ma himself—gives me some confidence in the company’s future. Perhaps the spirit of the “Ali man” isn’t dead after all. Rather than a time teller, I believe Jack Ma is a clock builder. And if you believe Alibaba is one of those companies built to last, then its recent setbacks may well be buying opportunities.
Below is the translation — I hope you enjoy it.
Alibaba’s mission is to make it easy to do business anywhere. Its vision is to be a good company that lasts 102 years.
Back then, I was inspired by this mission to join the company, hoping to accompany it through that long journey—because Alibaba was a great company.
When I first joined, we were working in the Chuangye (Entrepreneurship) Building.5 At lunchtime, we’d go to nearby restaurants where everyone wore their employee badges. The shops gave us discounts, but more than that, we felt a sense of respect and gratitude. Back then, respect didn’t come from high salaries, but from the kindness of Alibaba employees and the impact of our products. People around us could feel that Alibaba was truly helping solve real problems. The respect we received from society came from recognition of our character and values.
There was even a popular joke at the time: Mothers-in-law in Hangzhou prefers Alibaba employees as sons-in-law—because Alibaba had already done the screening for good character. Alibaba people were trustworthy.
I can’t remember exactly when it changed, but over the years, it became harder to wear that badge with pride. A string of negative events and public criticism, combined with shifting employee mindsets, changed things drastically—both outside and within. Maybe those mothers-in-law still want Alibaba sons-in-law, but now it’s probably because they earn good money.
After fifteen years, I must say this isn’t just about how others see us— we ourselves whave changed. We’ve lost that original dream of making the world a better place. Now we talk about KPIs, salaries, stock, real estate. We treat our customers and users as traffic and data. We discuss how to operate data, how to extract value from customers. Internally, we burn energy on the ‘361’ battles.6
Watching our core values slowly erode worries me deeply. How much longer can we hold onto our mission? Can we still achieve our vision?
To be clear, my own performance has been good. I have no complains with my current team or manager. I’m resigning as part of a personal plan, not a layoff package. So this post isn’t directed at any specific team or individual. What I say applies to any part of the company where these situations resonate. This is a reflection based on my own fifteen years at Alibaba, and conversations with friends across different BUs. It’s mainly meant as feedback to the company and leadership—a few final suggestions before I go. If you feel everything is great at Alibaba right now, feel free to skip this.
I’ll skip the praise and focus on the problems. If anything I write is incorrect, I welcome corrections. Once again, I stress that the issues I raise do not apply to all departments or all individuals at a given level. These problems are widespread, though not ubiquitous. If anything I say comes across as offensive, I apologize in advance.
Once Glorious
Let’s first talk about what made Alibaba great. Everyone may have their own explanations, but I would sum it up in four key factors: the macro trends, Jack Ma’s vision, shared values, and supportive corporate system.
Tailwinds of the era created enormous opportunities
Reform and opening-up, along with globalization, ushered in a surge in productivity. In terms of USD, China’s GDP grew from $1 trillion in 1999 to $11 trillion in 2010, and to $18 trillion in 2024. This massive economic growth was the tailwind beneath everything. Internet users in China rose from 8.9 million in 1999 to nearly 1 billion by 2020. The widespread adoption of smartphones pushed the number of mobile internet users from almost zero in 2005 to 986 million by 2020. The rapid development of both PC and wireless technologies gave rise to countless application scenarios.
Jack’s vision
Jack had both the foresight and the resolve to seize these opportunities. From B2B to Taobao, Alipay, Alibaba Cloud—one strategic decision after another allowed Alibaba to stay ahead. With resource integration centered around e-commerce, the Alibaba ecosystem was built step by step. Of course, none of this would have been possible without tremendous determination, especially in the case of Alibaba Cloud. At the time, the outside world was skeptical, and internal support was weak. Results weren’t visible—but the company persisted. That required serious conviction from senior leadership.
Unique team built on shared values
With strategy and resolve in place, the next step was to form a strong, capable team to execute. This was made possible by Alibaba’s unique culture. It brought together like-minded people who united around a common mission. We called each other "classmates"—we helped each other, we learned from each other. We used nicknames7 regardless of rank, reflecting a culture of equality rather than rigid hierarchy. We wanted to make the world a better place. We wanted to solve real problems. Not everyone who joined was exactly the same, of course—but before 2015, there was a common spirit among Alibaba people.
Well-designed corporate system empowering the team
Our core value —Customers first, employees second, shareholders third—was embedded in our system design, which empowered employees to fight for both the company and themselves. A free and open culture allowed everyone to speak their minds. The stock option system gave employees a sense of ownership and shared interests. The HRG system8 ensured employees had support when they ran into problems and channels for voicing concerns when they felt treated unfairly.
Signs of Weariness
When did we start to feel like we were weakening? There’s no clear boundary or defining event—some might point to the Ant Group incident—but my personal feeling is that it began around 2017. Qin Yan,9 however, posted warnings even earlier than that.
Growth momentum cooling down
After more than a decade of rapid growth, starting in 2017, the growth rate of internet and mobile users dropped to single digits and began to decline. By 2024, the number of users surpassed 1.1 billion, marking the near-complete penetration of the addressable domestic population—growth has essentially come to a halt. Most mainstream internet products had already established their foothold before 2017.
Most acquisitions ended in failure
As various business units within the group reached their peak, Alibaba began making strategic investments. Unfortunately, most of these acquisitions ended in failure. Here are a few examples:
Local Services: In 2006, Alibaba acquired Koubei.com (口碑网), back when O2O was still in its infancy. In 2010, Dianping was still a small player and Meituan had just been founded. After a series of moves, Koubei was shut down in 2011. It was relaunched in 2015 with traffic support from Alipay but remained lukewarm and was eventually merged into the Local Services division.
Food Delivery: In 2018, Alibaba acquired Ele.me. At the time, Ele.me and Baidu Waimai held over 50% of the food delivery market—solidly in the lead. Yet within two years, Meituan overtook them.
Bike Sharing: In 2017, Alibaba invested in ofo. After ofo collapsed in 2018, it invested in Hello Bike, which now barely holds its ground alongside Didi’s Qingju and Meituan.
Payments: Starting in 2014, Alipay’s offline payment business was continuously eroded by WeChat Pay. By 2017, it had lost direction. Even now, it’s painful to look back.
Music: In 2013, Alibaba acquired Xiami Music and Tiantian Dongting, which together held a 21.9% market share—the top position at the time. Tiantian Dongting shut down in 2016, and Xiami followed in 2021.
Video Streaming: In 2016, Alibaba acquired Youku Tudou with a 35% market share—ranked No. 1. Today, it has fallen to third place, with only about half the traffic of Tencent Video and iQIYI.
E-commerce (International): In 2016, Alibaba acquired Lazada, then the leading e-commerce platform in Southeast Asia. It has since been overtaken by Shopee, and TikTok has taken a significant share of the market as well.
Additionally, there were acquisitions of department store chains like Intime (Yintai) and Sun Art (RT-Mart) in 2017, costing tens of billions of RMB. By 2024, these assets began to be divested at a loss. We never truly transformed these traditional retail sectors—they remained what they were.
Over the years, the only acquisitions that could be considered successful were AutoNavi (Gaode) and possibly UC Browser.
I personally experienced both phases of Koubei. To be honest, based on what I saw at the time, it was clear it wouldn't succeed. Our approach was extremely simplistic and crude: throw money at operations to hit data metrics. As for the real fundamentals—recruiting merchants, building services, developing the product—those were seen as dirty work, exhausting, slow to deliver results, and had little short-term impact on KPIs. So nobody wanted to do them, or those who did weren’t rewarded with good performance reviews.
Coincidentally, in 2016 I was transferred to Alipay’s offline payments team to support the field effort. Within six months, I realized it was hopeless. The problem wasn’t the fierce competition or that WeChat was too strong—it was our performance evaluation system and company culture. We had lost the patience and resolve for long-term thinking. We were addicted to short-term stimulants. Team coordination and execution had become inefficient.
Few internal innovations have succeeded
Since 2015, few of the group’s internally incubated ventures have achieved real success. The strong growth of Alibaba Cloud was largely driven by the core e-commerce business’s infrastructure needs. Freshippo (盒马）’s momentum was supported by integration with Alibaba’s online user base, and Idle Fish (咸鱼) was essentially a spin-off from Taobao.
Aside from e-commerce-related spin-offs, very few businesses have succeeded from scratch. DingTalk is perhaps the only notable exception, and maybe the emerging browser app Quark could be considered another. The rest have either failed outright or are barely surviving.
Meanwhile, many new competitors have emerged externally, entering the market from different angles and significantly impacting the group’s core businesses. There are still market opportunities out there—but we are no longer able to seize them.
Deep-Rooted Internal Problems
Through conversations with people from different BUs, people are generally agree—since around 2017—on the internal issues and their severity at the company. The consensus: these problems are becoming increasingly widespread and serious.
I group the issues into three categories: people, compensation, and business. The following descriptions do not target any specific individuals, nor does fitting these descriptions necessarily mean someone has a negative impact.
1. People
Blind Faith in Outsiders
There's a tendency to overrate people from popular industries or companies. As soon as a sector gains attention, we assume everyone from there must be exceptional—offering them high salaries and senior titles. In reality, many of these individuals just happened to ride a wave; their actual abilities may not match the hype. Often, only the original core founders are truly outstanding.
Back in the day, Alipay held people from WeChat and Uber in excessively high regard, bringing in a batch of young, high-P-level hires. These newcomers lacked familiarity with our business, aimed for quick wins, and had no emotional connection to our mission. Their misguided decisions prioritized short-term results at the cost of long-term value—essentially killing the goose for the eggs.
At the time, we even joked: “Are these people undercover agents sent by competitors?” These parachuted middle managers often struggled to get supports and ended up forming their own cliques. Their goal, more often than not, was to wait out their vesting periods, and their actions were typically short-sighted. We do need fresh blood—but we must not be blinded by falshy resumes.
Newcomers Hiring Newcomers
There used to be a rule: if you hadn’t been at Alibaba long enough to absorb the company culture, you weren’t allowed to hire others. At some point, this standard disappeared. It’s now common to see fresh hires bringing in their own recruits—even some still in their probationary periods conducting interviews. I’ve always wondered: is the business really so urgent? Do these recruiters themselves meet Alibaba’s standards? And if they haven’t yet grasped what it means to be a Ali’s man, how can they identify and hire people who fit our culture?
Rise of the Wild Dogs
We used to classify employees according to both performance and alignment with company values.
The goal was to cultivate Bulls, eliminate Wild Dogs, and help Rabbits improve. But in recent years, KPI have become everything. The culture has shifted to: Whatever brings fast results with minimal effort—go for it. That naturally favors Wild Dogs, who cut corners, waste resources, and fight over credit. Over time, they rack up performance, win bonuses and promotions, and others either get assimilated or develop strong defenses just to survive. As a result, collaboration costs rise and trust erodes.
Pileup of Rabbits
In recent years, we’ve seen a growing number of both young Rabbits and old Rabbits. Some are demotivated by stalled business growth. Others have chosen to coast due to broken incentive systems or lack of hope. Some have survived because the company was too cautious to lay off staff during times of bad PR. Others are sheltered under internal factions. The bottom line: fewer people are truly getting things done, while procrastination and blame-shifting are becoming more common. There are even many who behave like Wild Dogs but with performance like Rabbits. (Dogs)
2. Compensation system
Pay grade inflation
Our compensation levels have been consistently inflating. On one hand, there’s imported inflation. Our salaries became less competitive due to the poor stock price, especially compared to fast-growing companies. Yet, we still want to attract talent and are overly confident in outsiders. As a result, when offering them a position that matches their level but the salary isn’t competitive, the only option is to raise the P-level (position level).
On the other hand, there’s internal inflation—to retain senior stuff, despite fewer business opportunities, we have no choice but to loosen promotion standards. I’ve seen many such cases. In the end people start to think “If this person can be promoted to this level, and that person too—why not me?” People like this may soon end up leading a business unit, and then influence even more people. Now that job levels are no longer disclosed, these conflicts and problems have simply gone underground.
Opaque performance evaluation
Job performance are directly tied to compensation, but they are are not made public. This gives managers significant room for manipulation. Although there are multiple levels of review and HR assessments, loopholes remain. It’s widely recognized that there’s often a gap between evaluation and actual performance.
This kind of opaque distribution system further encourages a "boss-centric" culture—where loyalty and serving the boss take precedence.
Back in 2014, our department piloted a system where everyone wrote their own performance self-assessment, and all results were made public for mutual evaluation and discussion. This effectively curbed common manipulative tactics, such as claiming credit for others’ work, presenting mere participation as leadership, shifting blame, or redefining performance indicators to one’s advantage.
Short-termism
In contrast to long-term thinking, more and more people now adopt a short-term mindset. The initiative to better motivate employee by decentralizing stock option issuance to individual BUs did not achieve its intended outcome. The company ended up buying back most of the options—often with little to no gain for lower-level employees. As a result, people can only focus on the short term.
Put it another way: we used to treat the company like home—working hard to generate revenue, save costs, and believing that every bit of extra value we created would be rewarded many times over in the future. But for today’s employees, even if they still think that way, it no longer seems to make a difference. It’s a vicious cycle.
3. Business
Unclear Strategy
In recent years, the company's vision for the future and its strategic direction have became less clear, and are gradually drifting away from the user needs. Top-down communication is either overly vague or reduced to simplistic numerical breakdowns, with few truly effective or inspiring initiatives. There’s a disconnect in the middle and upper management.
That said, some clarity and hope have finally begun to emerge with strategies like refocusing on users, returning to an internet-driven mindset, going all-in on AI, and exiting traditional offline businesses.
Wanting it all
In the past, we prided ourselves on being able to have it all, as if it were a testament to our strength and capability. But looking back now, it was actually the strong macro tailwinds at the time that supported all those ambitions.
Once the tailwinds stopped, the irrationality behind all those ambitions began to creep into our operations. In an environment of slower growth, intensified competition, and bloated teams, we still sought projects with low investment, short timelines, and high return.
As a result, we started seeing all kinds of actions that went against common sense. And the people driving these action were often either unprofessional or panderers.
Metric manipulation
How to achieve results quickly with minimal investment? The answer is operations (运营).10 Launch a campaign, and the metrics shoot up; selectively boost data, and the ROI looks perfect; metrics plateau? Just redefine the KPIs. Cross-channel traffic redirection and overlapping user coverage—I've seen all kinds of tricks. Consequently, the value brought by long-term product development ends up being neglected.
I’ve worked in operations for several years—I’m not against it. Different stages of a product’s lifecycle require different operational strategies to help it succeed in the market. But now, we've made operations the primary approach. Too often, the illusion of prosperity created by operations masks the hollowness of the product itself. We are addicted to it — but when the buzz fades, we're left with nothing but a mess.
Bureaucracy
Many level 8, 9, and 10 managers don't get involved on the ground or engage deeply with the industry. Once promoted to senior levels, they tend to talk in abstractions—recounting their past glories and speaking in lofty terms—yet provide little real value to the current business. Many of their achievements were the result of favorable macro trends and would likely be hard to replicate today, though they often attribute them to their own abilities.
Why classify this problem under business? Because this bureaucratic culture most directly impacts the quality of decision-making: it leads to unprofessional judgments, the dismissal of expert advice, and unrealistic performance expectations, all under the guise of slogans like how bold the people are, how rich the land is.
It also brings huge coordination costs—people constantly have to give face and trade favors; even when collaboration is pointless, they still go through the motions to maintain a good impression; people want to say no but don’t want to be direct; teams pretend to be working on B while actually trying to achieve A, dragging junior employees into endless busywork.
Another manifestation of bureaucracy is excessive reporting—up and down the chain, layer after layer. A lot of time is spent organizing data and preparing presentations, but when it’s time to make a decision, leaders hesitate or let things fizzle out.
The Root Cause
Alibaba once had a motto: “A group of people with affection and integrity doing something valuable and meaningful together.” I’m not sure how many people still remember this line, but it was one of the cultural values that originally drew me to Alibaba. When broken down, this sentence actually captures everything a great company should strive for:
People with affection and integrity: Like-minded individuals brought together and united by shared values.
Together: This requires systems and structures to ensure alignment and support.
Doing one thing: Refers to clear strategic focus—essential for efficiency.
Something valuable and meaningful: Speaks to a sense of mission—like making it easy to do business anywhere, and putting the customer first.
The various problems mentioned earlier all stem from this motto gradually losing its power. We’ve moved from a breakdown in systems, to the erosion of values, to unclear strategy, and finally to a culture where KPIs take priority over any sense of mission.
We are still a large company, but we’ve become mediocre. Values alone don’t guarantee success—but they are what help us get through difficult times together. In recent years, Alibaba has faced many challenges and setbacks. We’ve pulled through, yes—but what’s most unfortunate is that in the process, we abandoned our values. We didn’t overcome adversity by standing united and supporting one another. More often, it was simply because we had deep reserves and a large enough buffer to endure.
Values are a company’s morality. Systems are a company’s laws. Law is the lowest threshold of morality, but morality—when self-imposed—is far more powerful than being forced to comply with rules.
When the culture is lost, people lose their way. And when people lose their way, performance eventually follows.
1. Core Values Exists in Name Only
Since around 2020, it has felt like our values have gradually been weakened, and by now, they’ve become more of a decoration. Although they’re still listed in our OKRs, the detailed reviews are long gone, and evaluations have been minimized. How many newcomers still remember our core values? Do we ourselves still advocate them? My favorite was always the Old Six: Customer First, Teamwork, Embrace Change, Integrity, Passion, and Dedication.
But today, each of these values has gone bad.
Customer first has been replaced by boss first
Because your boss controls your performance ratings, bonuses, stock options, and promotion nominations, prioritizing your boss becomes the optimal strategy for survival—especially when there are few checks on the boss or information is asymmetric. If the boss also truly puts the customer first, then there’s no conflict between the two. But today, many managers focus mainly on carving up existing interests—trading performance for stock, chasing short-term results.
As a result, performance reviews and promotions have become personal tools of reward and punishment. What should have been a system for recognizing individual contributions has become a way for managers to select and train loyalists. Loyalty to the company is now often replaced by loyalty to the boss.
Collaborative teamwork now became internal competition
Where once we applauded the process, now only results count. When business was booming, cooperation meant shared success. But when external growth slowed and resources are limited, grabbing existing value became far more rewarding than creating new long-term value. Competition shifted inward: internal turf wars, poaching performance results, and ugly zero-sum games began to emerge. Over time, bad players crowded out the good.
Embracing change turned into cover up of strategic confusion
In the past, booming markets and endless new opportunities drove a healthy mindset of embracing change. In recent years, however, frequent leadership changes, unclear strategies, shifting policies, and a proliferation of short-term KPIs have made our work fragmented and directionless. No one can stick to long-term goals, and no one wants to "build for others to harvest."
Among senior leadership, there seems to be no accountability—if one project fails, they’re simply reassigned. When a general is incompetent, the entire army suffers. For junior employees, what gets you promoted or well-reviewed? Business innovation? Outstanding results? Trust from your manager? In times of constant change, the only reliable bet is building trust with your boss. And so, “boss culture” has grown stronger. We no longer call each other by nicknames, but by titles like boss, teacher, brother, sister.
Integrity has become a rarity
In a results-only culture, manipulation, deception, and falsified data have become routine. Those who master these tricks gain the upper hand. The company’s response to breaches of integrity has often been too lenient. The infamous “mooncake scandal” may have overcorrected,11 but overall, enforcement has swung to the other extreme—disconnected from what people believe is fair. This lack of bottom-line standards has made us afraid—or unwilling—to seek the truth, since truth can offend, and often reveals things people would rather ignore. People knowingly turn a blind eye to lies. They hype up projects to grab resources, inflate metrics during execution, and shift blame after failure. Those who master these three tricks thrive.
Passion is suffocated by forced, long work hours
Our predecessors proved that the contract responsibility system works better than collective farming.12 Passion comes from within—it can’t be forced. It is unleashed only when there is clear protection of property rights, fair distribution of interests, and a well-designed incentive system.
In recent years, with shrinking markets, overstaffing, and unfavorable capital environments, our formerly functioning systems have broken down. Since 2014’s all-in mobile, we’ve had multiple periods of 99613. From what I’ve seen, 996 brings no real value—it just makes people look busy. But we’re not manual laborers. Creativity is driven by inner motivation, not exernal pressures.
When there are proper incentives—whether it’s a sense of achievement or material rewards—and when the company ensures a just process, people will naturally work hard. In several project and teams I’ve been in, people voluntarily did "9116", either because the project was genuinely interesting, or because the goals and rewards were clearly set. When the work is meaningful, people will naturally work hard; when it's not, forcing overtime only rewards those who are good at office politics and faking.
Dedication gets you punished
Dedication means treating your work as if it were your own—enduring loneliness, working earnestly, and being willing to bear hardship. Sometimes it’s like farming: slow, careful cultivation over time. But today, a nomadic culture dominates. When a business shows promise, crowds rush in; when it no longer does, it’s discarded, and the honest people are left holding the bag. Factions in power run projects based on personal connections, applying soft budget constraints to their own people. As a result, many low-value projects persist.
2. Broken HR system
Why have company values become hollow and meaningless? At the root of it is HR’s failure to fulfill its responsibilities—and its loss of credibility.
Within an organization, HR plays two critical roles: that of a mentor and a supervisor. The mentor’s job is to guide employees to act with integrity; the supervisor’s role is to identify and stop those who harm the organization. HR is supposed to be the guardian and carrier of organizational culture.
Business leaders lead teams to deliver results, while HR manages people and oversees processes. Leaders are responsible for business outcomes; HR is responsible for upholding the culture.
In the past, HR would attend meetings with business teams, pay attention to people and morale, talk to employees, observe whether processes aligned with company values, and check whether employees were facing difficulties or whether managers were competent. When problems arose, employees were relatively willing to talk to HR and give feedback. Together, they could help build a healthier organization. HR was meant to be like a close friend for employees.
But today, HR seems to care only about results, barely showing concern for people. Their focus on values and principles seems to have been forgotten. Ask yourself: how many people today have had meaningful conversations with their HR? How many have even met them a few times? Has HR genuinely helped employees solve any issues? Do employees still see HR as a source of comfort—or more like secret police? How many people feel safe telling HR the truth?
When HR fails in its duty, the business process loses its checks and balances. When HR loses trust, employees lose hope
And what’s the root cause of HR’s failure? I believe it’s that top leadership places too much emphasis on performance results, causing HR’s priorities to shift. But if an organization’s systems begin to rot, and its culture starts to decline, how much creativity can you really expect from the people within?
3. Incompetent middle management
As mentioned earlier, many people happened to catch the right tailwind at the right time, and they were fortunate enough to seize the opportunity and rise to leadership.
Today we are in this new environment, opportunities for young talents are limited, as leadership positions are already saturated. But promotion cannot stop despite stagnating business. The middle and upper management ranks have become increasingly bloated, with a growing proportion of incompetence.
As a result, strategy breakdown and execution becomes difficult. Decisions are passed up the chain, but accountability falls on those below. Are mid-level leaders or managers? No one can say for sure anymore.
The Cure
My access will soon be revoked, and I’ve written all this not to complain. It takes courage to say these things, and I may offend many people. But I sincerely hope the company can face its problems and start to improve. Only by restoring our core values and strengthening our teams can we truly move toward a 102-year future.
Alibaba is a remarkable company. We've done many things that brought real, positive change to society. We’ve helped advance progress. Please continue creating things that are good and meaningful.
Many colleagues who’ve left have posted thoughtful suggestions to the company on the internal forum. Some of them were exceptionally well-written—but years have passed, and nothing seems to have changed. Someone once wrote: “If you sweep dust under the bed, there’s no more dust.” How sad, how laughably accurate.
I hope we can face reality and pursue real change. The internal forum should remain a place for advocation. Suppressing ideas is the same as suppressing innovation.
Restore Our Values. Reinstate our culture alignment assessments. The current scoring system is purely formality. We need group-level reviews of each item to encourage reflection and filter out those who don't align with our culture. Once the team is clean, the mess naturally disappears.
Rebuild the HR System. 360HR should return to serving employees. Reduce the weight placed on performance metrics—only then can HR act as a true balancing force within the organization. HR must lead by example, acting as a guardian of values. Introduce 360-degree feedback not only for managers but also for HR. HR needs to rebuild its credibility.
Reform the Management Structure. Dismantle the "boss culture" and encourage freer movement within the company. When employees have more choices, toxic teams and weak businesses dissolve faster. If strategy and tactics are clear, top-down execution can work; if not, we must foster and encourage bottom-up innovation.
Make Pay Grade Levels Transparent. Publicly disclosing compensation levels. Everyone should be able to withstand public evaluation. It would make it easier to spot the underqualified Level 7s, 8s, and 9s.
Transparent Performance Evaluation and Promotions. Don’t judge by what people say—judge by what they do. Performance, evaluation, and promotion are the clearest reflections of what we value and what we don’t. These must be transparent and open to public review. This isn’t about making salaries public, but about avoiding politics, favoritism, and credit-stealing.
Cut Redundant Personnel and Projects. Having worked in many departments, my honest feeling is that cutting one-third of the people wouldn’t fundamentally affect the business. Even cutting one-third of the projects wouldn’t cause major issues. Much of the work is unnecessary—people are just trying to look busy. When there are too many people and too little to do, meaningless work multiplies. Let’s do proper performance evaluations, identify the Wild Dogs and Rabbits, and part ways with those who need to go.
Dial Back Operations and Face the Truth. I’ve worked in operations for years and achieved good results. I’m not saying they are useless—but we need to de-emphasize it. Only when we dare to face the brutal truth beneath the glossy surface created by operations can we begin to take product development seriously and build solid foundations.
AI is here—embrace this era.
I hope the company can once again have blue skies above, solid ground beneath, and clear, transparent air all around.
I’ve said a lot—they are just my personal view. Let me end with a line borrowed from Qin Yan’s post: Written before leaving—hoping someone is willing to read it.
I’ve been with you for 15 years. May you endure for a century. Go, Alibaba!
Alibaba’s internal forum has been legendary since day one. It’s a bit like campus BBS—full of cafeteria complaints, matchmaking posts, product suggestions for the company, technical Q&A, and discussions on trending events. Two key rules of the forum are: real-name registration and no censorship. The forum runs on a voting system—users gain or lose “Sesame” points based on upvotes or downvotes. Jack Ma once joked that he’d sometimes lose a lot of Sesame because people disagreed with what he posted.
During this process, I learned that: (1) many Chinese expressions simply have no exact equivalent in English. This cultural difference shows how challenging it is for people from different backgrounds to truly understand each other; (2) there are still many sophisticated skills that current AI cannot master.
A follow-up interview after the author’s letter went viral: http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/ddzRgalWIrNcDNTR7mEbMw
Interestingly, even Alibaba’s forum policy reflects the company’s internal reforms. In 2023, alongside the “1+6+N” restructuring, each BU’s forum was separated and siloed. This policy was officially reversed on May 10th this year, when the new CEO addressed all employees with a post titled “Go back to our roots and start over".
Located at 99 Huaxing Road, Hangzhou. It’s the first commercial building Alibaba moved in from the residential apartments where Jack Ma founded Alibaba with the famous ‘18 Arhats’.
Alibaba’s “361” is a performance evaluation system for employees. It works like this:
30% of employees are rated as excellent (the “3”), and they receive higher performance bonuses, promotion opportunities, and recognition.
60% are rated as competent (the “6”), meaning their performance is acceptable and they remain in their current roles with standard compensation.
10% are rated as in need of improvement or underperforming (the “1”), which can result in warnings, demotion, or even dismissal.
花名 (nick name) is a unique culture of Alibaba since day one. Jack Ma’s nick name is Feng Qingyang — a reclusive, legendary swordsman from the Mount Hua School in Jin Yong’s The Smiling, Proud Wanderer.
Alibaba’s HRG system, short for Human Resources Generalist or often referred to as the “political commissar” system, is a unique HR structure inspired by military and political models. Jack Ma introduced it to ensure that employee well-being, culture, and values were upheld alongside business goals. Unlike traditional HR roles that focus mainly on administrative functions, HRGs in Alibaba are embedded within business units, acting as cultural guardians, conflict mediators, and coaches. Ma believed that as the company scaled rapidly, it needed not just capable employees, but also a mechanism to maintain unity, purpose, and the Alibaba spirit, especially during times of stress or internal competition.
Ex-employee of Alibaba. I couldn’t find any her resign letter online. There is a book on Taobao written by the same name, so I suspect it’s the same person. Here is the bio of the author: Joined Taobao in November 2006 and left in April 2015, working at Alibaba Group for over eight years. During this time, worked across multiple departments including Customer Service, Advertising, the Greater Taobao Rules Department, Taobao Seller Backend, and Alibaba Digital Entertainment.
I haven’t found a perfect translation for the word '运营' (operations), as there doesn’t seem to be a direct equivalent in Western contexts. In Chinese internet companies, the role of operations typically focuses on driving specific metrics—like DAU or sales—through campaigns such as discounts, giveaways, and other short-term promotional tactics.
The incident occurred in 2016 during the company's internal Mid-Autumn Festival mooncake giveaway. Four programmers used scripts to repeatedly claim mooncakes, securing an extra 124 boxes. In order to uphold corporate values, Alibaba decided to dismiss all four employees involved. This sparked widespread criticism, both inside and outside the company, with many feeling the response was overly harsh for a relatively minor offense.
9 a.m. to 9 p.m., 6 days a week
Wow. Thanks for sharing. The points about bureaucracy, mission, integrity and HR are interesting
Great post. Thank you for translating!