• <input id="4g248"><object id="4g248"></object></input>
    立即打開
    華爾街沒有女CEO的魔咒,被她打破了

    華爾街沒有女CEO的魔咒,被她打破了

    Claire Zillman 2020年10月31日
    她是第一位領導華爾街最大銀行之一的女性

    重新定義權力:花旗的女首席執行官說:“在某些方面,我可能更容易受到傷害,但此時我不會有虛弱或無力的感覺,我實際上變得更強大?!眻D片來源:CELESTE SLOMAN

    2019年4月,美國七大銀行的首席執行官出席了眾議院金融服務委員會的會議。在委員會成員宣誓時,在場的清一色全是白人男性,當他們被問到他們的繼任者是否可能是女性或有色人種時,沒有人舉手。

    這片沉默凸顯了一個鐵一般的事實:華爾街從來沒有女首席執行官,而且不久的將來也不會有。

    然而,這一事實與當時美國企業界的變革情緒背道而馳。

    #MeToo運動推動人們重新審視辦公室文化。機構投資者開始要求董事會增加女性,包括銀行在內的各種公司都在宣揚多元化。

    然而開頭的那一幕實在令人失望。

    后來,《財富》雜志在2019年《全球最具影響力的商界女性》??刑氐亓舫鰯淀?,提出了三個緊迫的問題:為什么銀行首席執行官這一職位對女性來說仍然如此難以觸及?誰可能成為第一個突破者?而這一突破何時才會來臨?

    對于后面兩個問題,現在有了明確的答案:今年9月中旬花旗集團宣布,簡·弗雷澤(Jane Fraser)將于明年2月接替高沛德(Michael Corbat)出任首席執行官。

    除非出現不可預知的變故,長期以來華爾街銀行的隱形天花板已經成為歷史。

    但弗雷澤的任命并未徹底消除多年來女性無緣出任高層領導的文化。

    這又引發了一系列新問題:首位出任華爾街大型銀行首席執行官的女性是誰?她如何實現這一看起來似乎無法實現的目標的?

    一方面,弗雷澤職業生涯的最新一步非常符合簡·史蒂芬森所說的“成功路線圖”,史蒂芬森是高管獵頭公司光輝國際里首席執行官接任部門的負責人。

    具體來說,她在花旗各個關鍵業務部門都工作過,每次離任時的業務狀況都比她剛接手時好。而與此同時,她拒絕為了追求事業犧牲個人生活,違反了以往很多成功登頂的舊“規則”。

    這種如同在古老迷宮中闖新路一般的尋找折中之道的能力,可能正是她格外適合這份工作的關鍵。

    也正因如此,她愿意坦率談論這份闖出迷宮的經驗。

    弗雷澤現年53歲,出生于蘇格蘭圣安德魯斯,熱愛打高爾夫球。

    她高中搬到了澳大利亞,最初渴望成為一名醫生。但她很快發現自己學不好生物,卻格外擅長數學和經濟學,于是自然而然向銀行業發展。

    弗雷澤畢業于劍橋大學,20歲就在倫敦的高盛公司工作。多年后,她感嘆自己是辦公室里“無聊的英國女孩”。

    “其他人來自歐洲各地,更具異國情調。他們年紀稍長,會說多種語言,我覺得他們比我有趣得多?!?016年,她在智庫美洲理事會和美洲協會的一次演講中說道。

    這種感覺促使她離開了倫敦,前往馬德里,在咨詢公司Asesores Bursátiles擔任了兩年分析師,期間提升了西班牙語能力。多年后這項技能發揮了巨大作用。

    上世紀90年代初,她從哈佛商學院畢業后,職業生涯進一步偏離了典型的銀行業成長軌跡。

    她加入了麥肯錫,同時直言不諱地表達了做出這一選擇的原因是,她認為銀行業的女性讓人“望而生畏”,她在2016年的演講中表示。

    那是一個流行女性戴大墊肩,穿男性化西裝的年代。浸泡在銀行業的女性和很多男性似乎沒有“那么幸福,”她回憶說,“他們確實非常成功,也很聰明。但很艱苦?!?/p>

    簡而言之:她想要正常的生活。

    在麥肯錫工作的強度也很大,但同樣有催人奮進的動力:成為值得信賴的顧問,盡可能準確地幫客戶進行預測。

    圖片來源:CELESTE SLOMAN

    兩年之后,她結婚了,并于有望升級為合伙人的那年懷孕。

    “很多人建議我,‘要升合伙人的時候別懷孕?!矣X得這簡直就是胡說八道?!痹诮衲?0月《財富》最具影響力的商界女性峰會上,她對我說道。

    她生孩子兩周后,公司通知她成為了合伙人。

    在此之后,她確實聽取了另一條建議:“我記得一位導師曾經對我說:‘你一生中會有好幾份職業,要從幾十年的視角進行衡量。為什么要著急,恨不得一步登天呢?’”

    這番話刺激她做出了一個至關重要的決定,在麥肯錫當合伙人的五年全是兼職,并于2004年離開麥肯錫,去了花旗工作。

    “做這個決定并不容易,我感到自尊受挫——因為能夠看到那些沒有自己資深的人職業發展更快?!彼f,“但我真正感受到快樂,實現了工作和個人生活的平衡?!?/p>

    那段經歷改變了她職業觀,也改變了她在辦公室工作的方式。

    弗雷澤說:“當我回到工作崗位全職工作時,客戶經常告訴我:‘現在的你更有同理心,以前的你只是臺機器?!?/p>

    2004年,弗雷澤加入花旗,擔任倫敦投資和企業銀行業務部客戶戰略主管。此時的她又演回了銀行業的劇本,卻開始再次不走尋常路。

    在接下來16年里,她在花旗擔任了一系列的工作,從中學習了不同部門的業務,積攢了領導獨立核算部門的經驗,也獲得了在公司內部建立聯系和打造名聲的機會。

    “看她的背景就知道?!笔返傥纳f。弗雷澤的輪崗“是持續積累的10年,這是一個巧妙的過程?!彼f。董事會考慮接班人時,“這種工作經歷會提升可信度”。

    當然,如果其中一些崗位需要做出艱難決策,或需要處理陷入困境的業務,這種經歷確實會有所幫助,但前提是要證明自己有能力應對得當。

    2007年9月,隨著金融危機加劇,時任首席財務官的加里·克里滕登讓弗雷澤擔任全球戰略與并購主管。她在接受這份工作后搬到紐約,協助時任首席執行官的潘偉迪(Vikram Pandit)判斷如何收縮銀行規模。

    她策劃了將花旗日本證券業務出售給三井住友金融集團的交易,作價80億美元。這幫助2009年的花旗獲得了亟需的資本金。除此之外,她還為花旗將美邦經紀業務出售給摩根士丹利打好了基礎。

    任職期間,她在18個月內完成了超過25筆交易。在這一過程中花旗出售了價值近萬億美元的資產,裁員10萬人。

    弗雷澤回憶稱,那段工作是她作為領導者的重要經歷之一。

    “當你真正能身處其位時,才能切實了解情況,不會流于空泛?!?0月她告訴我。

    “究竟要怎么做,才可以避免讓客戶驅動只是停留在墻上的口號?你做了哪些戰略決策?及早著手,認真應對,然后逐漸累積優勢爭取勝利……危機當中的學習曲線最陡峭?!?/p>

    盡管并購業務的經歷很有價值,弗雷澤還是想實際經營企業。

    2009年,潘偉迪給了她機會,讓她回倫敦工作四年,擔任花旗私人銀行負責人,為花旗最富裕的客戶提供服務。這份工作相當吸引人,尤其是與接下來在圣路易斯擔任花旗抵押貸款公司的首席執行官相比。

    2013年她接手該工作,而這段經歷正如她在2016年演講中所承認的,當時的抵押貸款業務如同次貸危機后的“地球劫難”。在她執掌下,花旗經歷了緩慢而痛苦的恢復過程,主要因為多年前花旗曾經向房利美和房地美出售不良抵押貸款,并為處理索賠支付了數億美元。

    2015年,高沛德任命弗雷澤為花旗拉丁美洲業務首席執行官,她再次獲得機會力挽狂瀾。

    按凈收入計算,拉丁美洲在花旗地區分部中規模最小但利潤率最高,如同皇冠上的寶石。

    花旗在墨西哥的零售部門,當時被稱為墨西哥國家銀行或Banamex,是墨西哥最大的銀行之一,分行達1400家,占花旗全球實體分支機構一半以上。

    在弗雷澤接手時,該業務深陷泥潭。

    2014年2月,花旗披露稱石油服務公司Oceanografía涉嫌從Banamex騙取了4億美元。幾個月后,Banamex發現某個為高管提供安全保障的部門員工向外部提供未經授權的服務,且從事非法活動,因此隨后解散了該部門。

    2017年,在接受《美國銀行家》雜志采訪時,弗雷澤談到要改變花旗在拉丁美洲的文化,不能再讓員工“對問題惡化視若不見,而是要主動提出,‘我對老板的做法感到不安?!?/p>

    這項工作很重要一步就是讓員工相信,舉報不當行為之后,銀行確實會采取對應行動。

    “這很大程度上取決于信任?!彼f。人們必須相信“他們提出問題不會惹禍上身,且公司會采取措施處理?!?/p>

    終極清理 (弗雷澤以整頓花旗集團聞名。她就任首席執行官后,接手的銀行多年年來一直落后于主要競爭對手,漲幅也低于標普銀行指數。) 來源:標準普爾全球

    弗雷澤出任拉美業務首席執行官后,拉美分部還出售了巴西、阿根廷和哥倫比亞等國的消費銀行和信用卡業務,更專注于當地機構業務。

    與此同時,花旗向墨西哥注入了10億美元,墨西哥是拉美國家當中唯一仍然有零售業務的國家。

    2016年,花旗宣布了為期四年的投資,主要通過升級自動柜員機、提供新型數字工具和分行改造來提升客戶體驗。

    弗雷澤任職期間,拉丁美洲分部的凈收入和凈利潤分別增長了8%和38%。

    弗雷澤在這之后一次升職是在2019年10月,出任全球消費者銀行總裁兼首席執行官。這也表明她在拉美分公司的工作受到首肯,從而邁上新臺階。

    從同事們口中透露出的跡象也可證實,弗雷澤是高沛德的繼承人。

    “消費業務占收入一半,也是直線經營業務,現在都交給了她,還讓她當這塊業務的總裁,這就是準備讓她當首席執行官?!被ㄆ旒瘓F主席約翰·杜根說。

    不過花旗正式任命弗雷澤為首席執行官的時間比預期的要快。

    弗雷澤被任命為總裁時,高沛德曾經表示他還要在花旗工作“幾年”,然而11個月后,公司便宣布二號人物上位。

    在領英的一篇帖子中,高沛德自稱“堅決支持任期限制”。

    杜根說,高沛德一直計劃2021年離任,但如今決定將時間提前,以便弗雷澤能夠“實際掌控”花旗改善控制和風險流程的進度。

    時間表的提前也給了花旗董事會領先優勢,使其成為了華爾街首家提名女性首席執行官的大銀行。

    “我們很高興能夠率先實現突破,也很高興公司里有極為適合這份工作的候選人?!倍鸥f。

    從很多方面看,弗雷澤強悍的簡歷與以前大型銀行的首席執行官有相似之處,但她對工作的態度卻并不一定符合過往領導者的模式。

    很多首席執行官都不愿承認自我懷疑的存在,她似乎不怕談起。

    她說,獲得擔任全球戰略與并購主管的第一反應是,憑自己的能力難以勝任。

    后來還是一位朋友說服了她:“你為什么擔心失???盡力試試。就算失敗又有什么關系?”

    弗雷澤愿意談論工作中人性化的一面,無論是缺乏自信、為人父母的壓力,亦或是銀行文化過往的失敗。她不僅在華爾街同輩中鶴立雞群,就算與其他在各自行業中“登頂”的女性相比也毫不遜色。

    有些女性會擔心,如果公開這類想法,會容易被貼上女首席執行官的標簽。而弗雷澤則認為這種坦誠是優勢:“在某些方面,我可能更容易受到傷害,我的一些男性同事不太愿意談論這一問題的人性層面?!?月她告訴我,“這不代表軟弱或無力,我認為這會使我更強大?!?/p>

    在被派往拉丁美洲之前,弗雷澤曾接替現已退休的塞西莉亞·斯圖爾特擔任花旗美國消費者和商業銀行首席執行官。領導層交接期間,兩人會見了全國各地的銀行家。

    斯圖爾特回憶說,弗雷澤可以“很自然地坐下來和別人交談,而且不論工作上還是生活上都可以迅速建立聯系?!?/p>

    “不管是男性還是女性,擁有飽含如此同理心的領導風格,能夠坦誠地討論各種情況非常重要?!彼箞D爾特說。

    這種領導風格尤其適合應對疫情?!皩γ绹髽I界來說,2021年和2022年可能截然不同?!彼箞D爾特表示,“因此,花旗能有這樣一位靈活,并愿意以開放心態領導公司經歷變革的領導人,無論結果怎樣,都是好事?!?/p>

    當然,打破這層隱形天花板只是開始。這位大型銀行圈子里的首位女首席執行官所接手的并非是一臺運轉良好的機器。

    花旗任命弗雷澤為首席執行官后不到一個月,美聯儲和美國貨幣監理署均指責該行風險控制長期存在缺陷,為此花旗同意支付4億美元。

    而在此前的8月,花旗集團曾經向Revlon lenders誤匯了9億美元,約為正確金額的100倍。

    根據貨幣監理署的指令,監管方面有權否決花旗的重大收購,必要時還可以強制要求花旗高管團隊或董事會變更。

    監管機構“一般不會如此嚴厲,除非真被惹怒,”喬治·華盛頓大學的法學教授,曾經研究銀行監管的亞瑟·威爾馬思表示。

    花旗在一份聲明中表示,對于未能達到監管機構的預期深表失望,“正實施深層整改”。

    投資者也渴望弗雷澤能夠解決花旗的盈利能力問題。因為長期以來,花旗一直落后于華爾街的其他競爭對手。

    企業內晉升階梯越來越窄 (實際上,進入銀行業和金融業的女性比例略高于男性,但每一次晉升過程中,女性人數都在減少。) 來源:麥肯錫公司

    此外,另一大挑戰是對花旗的控制。

    “當前正面臨疫情和經濟衰退夾擊。貸款損失將上升,利率也處于歷史低位?!卑涂巳R銀行的分析師杰森·戈德伯格表示??梢哉f,現在對銀行家來說,是非常艱難的時期。

    監管舉措對花旗來說是一記重拳,但威爾馬思認為,從某種程度上說,這其實鞏固了弗雷澤的地位。這種情況下,“如果沒有監管者默許,我懷疑她很難順利晉升?!蓖栺R思說。(花旗對此拒絕置評。)

    戈德伯格說,從弗雷澤的過往經歷來看,她確實適合此時上任?;ㄆ臁靶枰恍┱{整,”他指出,“她在清理業務和扭轉局面方面經驗豐富?!?/p>

    弗雷澤在10月的談話中也對此表示了認同。

    面對任何危機,“都要回過頭來說:‘出現問題的根本原因是什么,如何將危局變成機會,真正實現跨越式發展,推動銀行邁上新臺階?’”弗雷澤說?!叭绾渭罟境_的方向努力?我在私人銀行成功過,在抵押貸款部門成功過,在墨西哥也成功過?,F在有機會能帶領花旗,我對此感到很興奮?!?/p>

    今年9月,弗雷澤成了第一位獲得華爾街首席執行官職位的女性。到了明年2月,她將正式成為花旗掌門人。(財富中文網)

    本文另一版本登載于《財富》雜志2020年11月刊,標題為《華爾街第一女性》。

    譯者:夏林

    編輯:徐曉彤

    2019年4月,美國七大銀行的首席執行官出席了眾議院金融服務委員會的會議。在委員會成員宣誓時,在場的清一色全是白人男性,當他們被問到他們的繼任者是否可能是女性或有色人種時,沒有人舉手。

    這片沉默凸顯了一個鐵一般的事實:華爾街從來沒有女首席執行官,而且不久的將來也不會有。

    然而,這一事實與當時美國企業界的變革情緒背道而馳。

    #MeToo運動推動人們重新審視辦公室文化。機構投資者開始要求董事會增加女性,包括銀行在內的各種公司都在宣揚多元化。

    然而開頭的那一幕實在令人失望。

    后來,《財富》雜志在2019年《全球最具影響力的商界女性》??刑氐亓舫鰯淀?,提出了三個緊迫的問題:為什么銀行首席執行官這一職位對女性來說仍然如此難以觸及?誰可能成為第一個突破者?而這一突破何時才會來臨?

    對于后面兩個問題,現在有了明確的答案:今年9月中旬花旗集團宣布,簡·弗雷澤(Jane Fraser)將于明年2月接替高沛德(Michael Corbat)出任首席執行官。

    除非出現不可預知的變故,長期以來華爾街銀行的隱形天花板已經成為歷史。

    但弗雷澤的任命并未徹底消除多年來女性無緣出任高層領導的文化。

    這又引發了一系列新問題:首位出任華爾街大型銀行首席執行官的女性是誰?她如何實現這一看起來似乎無法實現的目標的?

    一方面,弗雷澤職業生涯的最新一步非常符合簡·史蒂芬森所說的“成功路線圖”,史蒂芬森是高管獵頭公司光輝國際里首席執行官接任部門的負責人。

    具體來說,她在花旗各個關鍵業務部門都工作過,每次離任時的業務狀況都比她剛接手時好。而與此同時,她拒絕為了追求事業犧牲個人生活,違反了以往很多成功登頂的舊“規則”。

    這種如同在古老迷宮中闖新路一般的尋找折中之道的能力,可能正是她格外適合這份工作的關鍵。

    也正因如此,她愿意坦率談論這份闖出迷宮的經驗。

    弗雷澤現年53歲,出生于蘇格蘭圣安德魯斯,熱愛打高爾夫球。

    她高中搬到了澳大利亞,最初渴望成為一名醫生。但她很快發現自己學不好生物,卻格外擅長數學和經濟學,于是自然而然向銀行業發展。

    弗雷澤畢業于劍橋大學,20歲就在倫敦的高盛公司工作。多年后,她感嘆自己是辦公室里“無聊的英國女孩”。

    “其他人來自歐洲各地,更具異國情調。他們年紀稍長,會說多種語言,我覺得他們比我有趣得多?!?016年,她在智庫美洲理事會和美洲協會的一次演講中說道。

    這種感覺促使她離開了倫敦,前往馬德里,在咨詢公司Asesores Bursátiles擔任了兩年分析師,期間提升了西班牙語能力。多年后這項技能發揮了巨大作用。

    上世紀90年代初,她從哈佛商學院畢業后,職業生涯進一步偏離了典型的銀行業成長軌跡。

    她加入了麥肯錫,同時直言不諱地表達了做出這一選擇的原因是,她認為銀行業的女性讓人“望而生畏”,她在2016年的演講中表示。

    那是一個流行女性戴大墊肩,穿男性化西裝的年代。浸泡在銀行業的女性和很多男性似乎沒有“那么幸福,”她回憶說,“他們確實非常成功,也很聰明。但很艱苦?!?/p>

    簡而言之:她想要正常的生活。

    在麥肯錫工作的強度也很大,但同樣有催人奮進的動力:成為值得信賴的顧問,盡可能準確地幫客戶進行預測。

    兩年之后,她結婚了,并于有望升級為合伙人的那年懷孕。

    “很多人建議我,‘要升合伙人的時候別懷孕?!矣X得這簡直就是胡說八道?!痹诮衲?0月《財富》最具影響力的商界女性峰會上,她對我說道。

    她生孩子兩周后,公司通知她成為了合伙人。

    在此之后,她確實聽取了另一條建議:“我記得一位導師曾經對我說:‘你一生中會有好幾份職業,要從幾十年的視角進行衡量。為什么要著急,恨不得一步登天呢?’”

    這番話刺激她做出了一個至關重要的決定,在麥肯錫當合伙人的五年全是兼職,并于2004年離開麥肯錫,去了花旗工作。

    “做這個決定并不容易,我感到自尊受挫——因為能夠看到那些沒有自己資深的人職業發展更快?!彼f,“但我真正感受到快樂,實現了工作和個人生活的平衡?!?/p>

    那段經歷改變了她職業觀,也改變了她在辦公室工作的方式。

    弗雷澤說:“當我回到工作崗位全職工作時,客戶經常告訴我:‘現在的你更有同理心,以前的你只是臺機器?!?/p>

    2004年,弗雷澤加入花旗,擔任倫敦投資和企業銀行業務部客戶戰略主管。此時的她又演回了銀行業的劇本,卻開始再次不走尋常路。

    在接下來16年里,她在花旗擔任了一系列的工作,從中學習了不同部門的業務,積攢了領導獨立核算部門的經驗,也獲得了在公司內部建立聯系和打造名聲的機會。

    “看她的背景就知道?!笔返傥纳f。弗雷澤的輪崗“是持續積累的10年,這是一個巧妙的過程?!彼f。董事會考慮接班人時,“這種工作經歷會提升可信度”。

    當然,如果其中一些崗位需要做出艱難決策,或需要處理陷入困境的業務,這種經歷確實會有所幫助,但前提是要證明自己有能力應對得當。

    2007年9月,隨著金融危機加劇,時任首席財務官的加里·克里滕登讓弗雷澤擔任全球戰略與并購主管。她在接受這份工作后搬到紐約,協助時任首席執行官的潘偉迪(Vikram Pandit)判斷如何收縮銀行規模。

    她策劃了將花旗日本證券業務出售給三井住友金融集團的交易,作價80億美元。這幫助2009年的花旗獲得了亟需的資本金。除此之外,她還為花旗將美邦經紀業務出售給摩根士丹利打好了基礎。

    任職期間,她在18個月內完成了超過25筆交易。在這一過程中花旗出售了價值近萬億美元的資產,裁員10萬人。

    弗雷澤回憶稱,那段工作是她作為領導者的重要經歷之一。

    “當你真正能身處其位時,才能切實了解情況,不會流于空泛?!?0月她告訴我。

    “究竟要怎么做,才可以避免讓客戶驅動只是停留在墻上的口號?你做了哪些戰略決策?及早著手,認真應對,然后逐漸累積優勢爭取勝利……危機當中的學習曲線最陡峭?!?/p>

    盡管并購業務的經歷很有價值,弗雷澤還是想實際經營企業。

    2009年,潘偉迪給了她機會,讓她回倫敦工作四年,擔任花旗私人銀行負責人,為花旗最富裕的客戶提供服務。這份工作相當吸引人,尤其是與接下來在圣路易斯擔任花旗抵押貸款公司的首席執行官相比。

    2013年她接手該工作,而這段經歷正如她在2016年演講中所承認的,當時的抵押貸款業務如同次貸危機后的“地球劫難”。在她執掌下,花旗經歷了緩慢而痛苦的恢復過程,主要因為多年前花旗曾經向房利美和房地美出售不良抵押貸款,并為處理索賠支付了數億美元。

    2015年,高沛德任命弗雷澤為花旗拉丁美洲業務首席執行官,她再次獲得機會力挽狂瀾。

    按凈收入計算,拉丁美洲在花旗地區分部中規模最小但利潤率最高,如同皇冠上的寶石。

    花旗在墨西哥的零售部門,當時被稱為墨西哥國家銀行或Banamex,是墨西哥最大的銀行之一,分行達1400家,占花旗全球實體分支機構一半以上。

    在弗雷澤接手時,該業務深陷泥潭。

    2014年2月,花旗披露稱石油服務公司Oceanografía涉嫌從Banamex騙取了4億美元。幾個月后,Banamex發現某個為高管提供安全保障的部門員工向外部提供未經授權的服務,且從事非法活動,因此隨后解散了該部門。

    2017年,在接受《美國銀行家》雜志采訪時,弗雷澤談到要改變花旗在拉丁美洲的文化,不能再讓員工“對問題惡化視若不見,而是要主動提出,‘我對老板的做法感到不安?!?/p>

    這項工作很重要一步就是讓員工相信,舉報不當行為之后,銀行確實會采取對應行動。

    “這很大程度上取決于信任?!彼f。人們必須相信“他們提出問題不會惹禍上身,且公司會采取措施處理?!?/p>

    終極清理 (弗雷澤以整頓花旗集團聞名。她就任首席執行官后,接手的銀行多年年來一直落后于主要競爭對手,漲幅也低于標普銀行指數。) 來源:標準普爾全球

    弗雷澤出任拉美業務首席執行官后,拉美分部還出售了巴西、阿根廷和哥倫比亞等國的消費銀行和信用卡業務,更專注于當地機構業務。

    與此同時,花旗向墨西哥注入了10億美元,墨西哥是拉美國家當中唯一仍然有零售業務的國家。

    2016年,花旗宣布了為期四年的投資,主要通過升級自動柜員機、提供新型數字工具和分行改造來提升客戶體驗。

    弗雷澤任職期間,拉丁美洲分部的凈收入和凈利潤分別增長了8%和38%。

    弗雷澤在這之后一次升職是在2019年10月,出任全球消費者銀行總裁兼首席執行官。這也表明她在拉美分公司的工作受到首肯,從而邁上新臺階。

    從同事們口中透露出的跡象也可證實,弗雷澤是高沛德的繼承人。

    “消費業務占收入一半,也是直線經營業務,現在都交給了她,還讓她當這塊業務的總裁,這就是準備讓她當首席執行官?!被ㄆ旒瘓F主席約翰·杜根說。

    不過花旗正式任命弗雷澤為首席執行官的時間比預期的要快。

    弗雷澤被任命為總裁時,高沛德曾經表示他還要在花旗工作“幾年”,然而11個月后,公司便宣布二號人物上位。

    在領英的一篇帖子中,高沛德自稱“堅決支持任期限制”。

    杜根說,高沛德一直計劃2021年離任,但如今決定將時間提前,以便弗雷澤能夠“實際掌控”花旗改善控制和風險流程的進度。

    時間表的提前也給了花旗董事會領先優勢,使其成為了華爾街首家提名女性首席執行官的大銀行。

    “我們很高興能夠率先實現突破,也很高興公司里有極為適合這份工作的候選人?!倍鸥f。

    從很多方面看,弗雷澤強悍的簡歷與以前大型銀行的首席執行官有相似之處,但她對工作的態度卻并不一定符合過往領導者的模式。

    很多首席執行官都不愿承認自我懷疑的存在,她似乎不怕談起。

    她說,獲得擔任全球戰略與并購主管的第一反應是,憑自己的能力難以勝任。

    后來還是一位朋友說服了她:“你為什么擔心失???盡力試試。就算失敗又有什么關系?”

    弗雷澤愿意談論工作中人性化的一面,無論是缺乏自信、為人父母的壓力,亦或是銀行文化過往的失敗。她不僅在華爾街同輩中鶴立雞群,就算與其他在各自行業中“登頂”的女性相比也毫不遜色。

    有些女性會擔心,如果公開這類想法,會容易被貼上女首席執行官的標簽。而弗雷澤則認為這種坦誠是優勢:“在某些方面,我可能更容易受到傷害,我的一些男性同事不太愿意談論這一問題的人性層面?!?月她告訴我,“這不代表軟弱或無力,我認為這會使我更強大?!?/p>

    在被派往拉丁美洲之前,弗雷澤曾接替現已退休的塞西莉亞·斯圖爾特擔任花旗美國消費者和商業銀行首席執行官。領導層交接期間,兩人會見了全國各地的銀行家。

    斯圖爾特回憶說,弗雷澤可以“很自然地坐下來和別人交談,而且不論工作上還是生活上都可以迅速建立聯系?!?/p>

    “不管是男性還是女性,擁有飽含如此同理心的領導風格,能夠坦誠地討論各種情況非常重要?!彼箞D爾特說。

    這種領導風格尤其適合應對疫情?!皩γ绹髽I界來說,2021年和2022年可能截然不同?!彼箞D爾特表示,“因此,花旗能有這樣一位靈活,并愿意以開放心態領導公司經歷變革的領導人,無論結果怎樣,都是好事?!?/p>

    當然,打破這層隱形天花板只是開始。這位大型銀行圈子里的首位女首席執行官所接手的并非是一臺運轉良好的機器。

    花旗任命弗雷澤為首席執行官后不到一個月,美聯儲和美國貨幣監理署均指責該行風險控制長期存在缺陷,為此花旗同意支付4億美元。

    而在此前的8月,花旗集團曾經向Revlon lenders誤匯了9億美元,約為正確金額的100倍。

    根據貨幣監理署的指令,監管方面有權否決花旗的重大收購,必要時還可以強制要求花旗高管團隊或董事會變更。

    監管機構“一般不會如此嚴厲,除非真被惹怒,”喬治·華盛頓大學的法學教授,曾經研究銀行監管的亞瑟·威爾馬思表示。

    花旗在一份聲明中表示,對于未能達到監管機構的預期深表失望,“正實施深層整改”。

    投資者也渴望弗雷澤能夠解決花旗的盈利能力問題。因為長期以來,花旗一直落后于華爾街的其他競爭對手。

    企業內晉升階梯越來越窄 (實際上,進入銀行業和金融業的女性比例略高于男性,但每一次晉升過程中,女性人數都在減少。) 來源:麥肯錫公司

    此外,另一大挑戰是對花旗的控制。

    “當前正面臨疫情和經濟衰退夾擊。貸款損失將上升,利率也處于歷史低位?!卑涂巳R銀行的分析師杰森·戈德伯格表示??梢哉f,現在對銀行家來說,是非常艱難的時期。

    監管舉措對花旗來說是一記重拳,但威爾馬思認為,從某種程度上說,這其實鞏固了弗雷澤的地位。這種情況下,“如果沒有監管者默許,我懷疑她很難順利晉升?!蓖栺R思說。(花旗對此拒絕置評。)

    戈德伯格說,從弗雷澤的過往經歷來看,她確實適合此時上任?;ㄆ臁靶枰恍┱{整,”他指出,“她在清理業務和扭轉局面方面經驗豐富?!?/p>

    弗雷澤在10月的談話中也對此表示了認同。

    面對任何危機,“都要回過頭來說:‘出現問題的根本原因是什么,如何將危局變成機會,真正實現跨越式發展,推動銀行邁上新臺階?’”弗雷澤說?!叭绾渭罟境_的方向努力?我在私人銀行成功過,在抵押貸款部門成功過,在墨西哥也成功過?,F在有機會能帶領花旗,我對此感到很興奮?!?/p>

    今年9月,弗雷澤成了第一位獲得華爾街首席執行官職位的女性。到了明年2月,她將正式成為花旗掌門人。(財富中文網)

    本文另一版本登載于《財富》雜志2020年11月刊,標題為《華爾街第一女性》。

    譯者:夏林

    編輯:徐曉彤

    CEOs of seven of the largest U.S. banks appeared before the House Financial Services Committee in April 2019. When the panel—all men, all white—were asked under oath if their successors were likely to be female or a person of color, no one raised his hand.

    Without saying a word, the CEOs had put a fine point on a hard truth: Wall Street had never had a female CEO, nor was one likely in the near future.

    The message they sent was antithetical to the mood of corporate America at the time. The #MeToo movement had prompted a harsh reexamination of office workplace dynamics; institutional investors were demanding that boards of directors add more women; and companies—banks included—were preaching the merits of diversity.

    The moment left such a bleak impression that Fortune dedicated pages of its 2019 Most Powerful Women issue to asking three pressing questions: Why had bank CEO suites remained so impenetrable to women? Who might be the first to break through? And when?

    We now have a definitive answer to those last two questions: Citigroup in mid-September announced that Jane Fraser would succeed Michael Corbat as chief executive in February. Barring something unforeseeable, Wall Street banks’ long-standing glass ceiling is history.

    But Fraser’s appointment doesn’t eliminate the culture that had kept women out of the corner office for so long. In fact, it raises a new set of questions: Who is the woman who will be the first female CEO of a big Wall Street bank and how did she achieve what has, for so long, appeared unachievable?

    On one hand, the most recent stage of Fraser’s career follows what Jane Stevenson, head of CEO succession at executive recruiter Korn Ferry, calls “the blueprint”: She worked her way through key business units at the bank and left each better than she found it. Yet at the same time, her refusal to sacrifice her personal life at the altar of her career flouts many of the old “rules” for getting to the top. That ability to find a middle way—to forge a new path through a very old maze—may indeed be an essential part of what makes her uniquely qualified for the job she’ll step into next year. And so, for that matter, is her willingness to talk candidly about navigating the labyrinth.

    *****

    Fraser, 53, was born in St. Andrews, Scotland. (Yes, as a matter of birth she has an affinity for golf.) She moved to Australia for high school and with aspirations to be a doctor. But she soon learned she was bad at biology but fond of math and economics, which made banking a natural career fit.

    From the University of Cambridge, she landed at Goldman Sachs in London at the tender age of 20. She would lament years later that she was “the boring British girl” in the office. “Everyone else was much more exotic, from all over Europe. They were a little bit older, they spoke multiple languages, and I just thought they were so much more interesting than I was,” she said in a 2016 address to the Americas Society and Council of the Americas. The feeling was motivation enough for her to leave London for Madrid, where she spent two years as an analyst at consultancy Asesores Bursátiles and worked on her Spanish—a skill that would prove especially useful years down the line.

    After business school at Harvard in the early 1990s, her career diverged further from the typical banking trajectory. Rather than return to a place like Goldman, she opted to join consulting firm McKinsey for a reason she doesn’t sugarcoat: The women she saw in the banking industry at that time “were rather scary,” she said in the 2016 speech.

    Those were the days of big shoulder pads and manly suits. The women and many of the men didn’t seem “that happy,” she recalled. “They were very successful. They were brilliant. But it was tough.”

    In short: She wanted a life.

    Working at McKinsey was still demanding, but it offered the same dynamic—being a trusted adviser to a client—with more predictability.

    She got married two years later and got pregnant the same year she was up for partner. “I got quite a lot of advice, ‘Don’t get pregnant in your partnership year.’ And I just thought that was nonsense,” she told me at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit in October. The firm informed her she’d made partner two weeks after she gave birth.

    After that moment—having a baby, making partner—she did heed a different piece of advice: “I remember one of my mentors saying to me, ‘You’re going to have several careers in your life, and your careers are going to be measured in decades. So why this sense of rush and trying to have everything at the same time?’?” It led her to make a decision that she says was critical: She chose to work the entirety of her five-year partnership—until she left McKinsey for Citi in 2004—part-time.

    “It wasn’t easy—my own ego suffered a bit on that one, because you do see people who are more junior than you who are accelerating faster in their careers,” she said. “But that’s what enabled me to actually feel happy and have a balance in my professional life and personal life.”

    That experience changed her perspective—and changed how she operated at the office.

    “When I got back to working again and working full-time,” Fraser said, “my clients used to tell me, ‘You’re a much more empathetic person; you were just this machine before.’?”

    *****

    In 2004, Fraser joined Citi as head of client strategy in the bank’s investment and corporate banking division in London. This is the moment she returned to the traditional banking playbook and began tearing through it. Over the next 16 years, she took on a series of jobs at Citi that taught her about different parts of the business, gave her experience leading units that had their own profit and loss statements or P&L, and offered her opportunities to build relationships and a standout reputation within the firm. “Look at her background,” Stevenson says. Fraser’s rotation in and out of jobs was “an artful process that came together over a decade,” she says. “These kinds of roles lend credibility” when boards are weighing succession plans.

    It helps, of course, if some of those roles require you to make tough choices or oversee troubled businesses—and if you prove you have what it takes to handle the demands.

    After her run in investment and corporate banking, then-CFO Gary Crittenden offered Fraser the job of global head of strategy and M&A in September 2007 as the financial crisis was mounting. She took the job and relocated to New York to help then-CEO Vikram Pandit decide how to shrink the bank. She orchestrated the sale of Citi’s Japanese securities business to Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group in a $8 billion deal that gave the bank a vital capital boost in 2009. She also laid the groundwork for Citi’s sale of its Smith Barney brokerage to Morgan Stanley. During her time in the role, she executed more than 25 deals in 18 months. The bank sold nearly a trillion dollars’ worth of assets and cut 100,000 jobs in the process.

    Fraser recalls that work as one of her foundational experiences as a leader. “It does make you sit there and be more definitive and less wishy-washy,” she told me in October. “What does being client-driven really mean so it’s not just a plaque on the wall? What are some of the strategic choices you make? Do them early and do them well and stack them up to win...Nothing like a crisis to have your steepest learning curve.”

    Valuable as the experience was, Fraser still wanted to run a business. Pandit gave her that chance in 2009, sending her back to London for four years to cater to Citi’s wealthiest clients as head of the private bank. It was a sexy job, especially compared with what came next: serving as CEO of CitiMortgage in St. Louis. She took that job in 2013, when the mortgage business was, as she admitted in the 2016 speech, “the scourge of the earth” following the subprime crisis. She oversaw the slow and painful process of righting the ship, as Citi paid hundreds of millions of dollars to settle claims that it had sold faulty mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac years earlier.

    Then, in 2015, Fraser got yet another turnaround job, when Corbat named her CEO of Citi’s Latin America business.

    Latin America is the smallest of Citi’s regional divisions by net revenue but has the highest rate of return, making it something of a crown jewel. Its retail arm in Mexico, then known as Banco Nacional de México or Banamex, is one of Mexico’s biggest banks, and its 1,400 branches account for more than half of Citi’s physical locations globally.

    When Fraser took over, the division was tarnished. In February 2014, Citi disclosed that oil services firm Oceanografía had allegedly defrauded Banamex out of $400 million. Months later, Banamex disbanded a unit of the bank that provided security to executives after discovering that employees had engaged in illegal activity by offering unauthorized services to outside parties.

    In a 2017 interview with American Banker, Fraser talked about trying to change the bank’s culture in Latin America so employees would be “more comfortable escalating issues, or saying, ‘I’m not comfortable with what my boss [has] done.’?” A big part of that effort was convincing employees that the bank would act on allegations of wrongdoing. “A lot of this comes down to trust,” she said. People must believe that “if they raise an issue they’re going to be okay, and you will do something about it.”

    With Fraser as CEO, the Latin American division also sold off consumer banking and credit card operations in countries like Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia to more narrowly focus on its institutional business in the region.

    At the same time, Citi poured $1 billion into Mexico, the only Latin American country where it still has retail operations. The four-year investment, announced in 2016, was intended to upgrade the customer experience with new ATMs, new digital tools, and branch makeovers.

    During Fraser’s tenure, net revenue and net profit for the Latin America division grew 8% and 38%, respectively.

    Fraser’s next promotion, in October 2019, to president and CEO of global consumer banking, was an indication that the work she’d done in Latin America had pushed her to the next level. It was confirmation of what colleagues say was already obvious: that Fraser was Corbat’s heir apparent. “Giving her the consumer business, which is half of our revenues and a line operating business, and making her president was?…?to tee her up to get ready to be CEO,” Citi chair John Dugan says.

    But Citi officially launched Fraser into the top job sooner than expected. When Fraser was named president, Corbat indicated he had “years” left at Citi, but his No. 2 got the nod 11 months later.

    Corbat called himself “a steadfast believer in term limits” in explaining the timing in a LinkedIn post. Dugan says Corbat had always planned to leave in 2021 but decided to depart on the early side so Fraser could “own” the bank’s efforts to improve controls and risk processes.

    The accelerated timeline also gave Citi an advantage that wasn’t lost on the board—it got to be first to name a female CEO. “We were delighted to beat everyone to the punch. It was going to happen, and we were delighted to have a candidate who was so eminently qualified for the job,” Dugan says.

    *****

    While Fraser’s ironclad résumé looks, in many ways, like that of the big bank CEOs who’ve come before her, her personal approach to her work doesn’t always conform to the corner office mold.

    She’s appeared unafraid of sharing the moments of self-doubt that so many CEOs seem to hide away in the backs of their custom closets. She says her initial response to being offered the global head of strategy and M&A was that she wasn’t good enough for the role. She recalls a friend convinced her, saying, “Why are you worried about failing? Go for it. What does it matter if that’s the case?”

    Fraser’s willingness to talk about the human side of the job—whether lapses in self-assuredness, the demands of parenthood, the past failings of bank culture—sets her apart not just from her Wall Street peers, but from other women who have achieved “firsts” in their industries, some of whom fear that by being open about such things they’ll be pigeonholed by the label, female CEO. Fraser sees it as an advantage: “I can be more vulnerable in certain areas; talking more about the human dimensions of this than some of my male colleagues are comfortable [with],” she told me in May. “I don’t feel that’s in any way soft or weaker; I actually think it’s much more powerful.”

    Before her posting to Latin America, Fraser succeeded Cecelia Stewart, now retired, for a stint as CEO of Citi’s U.S. consumer and commercial bank. As part of the leadership transition, the pair met with bankers across the country. Stewart recalls Fraser could “just naturally sit down and talk with someone and connect with them, whether it was work-related or life-related.”

    “For a person—male or female—to have that level of compassion in their leadership style and that openness and willingness to discuss all different types of situations is critically important,” Stewart says. The approach is especially well suited for the pandemic. “2021 and 2022 for corporate America may look really different,” Stewart says, “so having a leader like Jane who is flexible, who is willing and open to lead through that kind of change, whatever that turns out to be, is terrific and a positive for Citi.”

    *****

    Breaking the glass ceiling, of course, was just the beginning. Big banking’s first female CEO is not inheriting a well-oiled machine.

    Less than a month after Citi named Fraser its next CEO, Citi agreed to pay $400 million after the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reprimanded the bank for long-standing deficiencies related to its risk controls. The action followed an embarrassing episode in August in which Citi erroneously sent $900 million to Revlon lenders, roughly 100 times as much as they were supposed to receive. The OCC order gives the regulator veto power over any major Citi acquisition and, if necessary, the right to mandate changes to the bank’s senior management team or board.

    It is “not typical” for the regulators to “come down so hard unless they’re really not happy,” says Arthur Wilmarth, a George Washington University law professor who has studied bank regulation. In a statement, Citi said it was disappointed to have fallen short of the regulators’ expectations and has “significant remediation projects underway.”

    Investors are also eager for Fraser to address Citi’s profitability, which has long trailed that of its Wall Street rivals.

    Another challenge is more out of Citi’s control. “We’re in the middle of a pandemic and recession. Loan losses are going to go up, and interest rates are at historic lows,” says Barclays analyst Jason Goldberg. Fundamentally, it’s a hard time to be a banker.

    The regulatory action was a sucker punch to Citi, but Wilmarth argues that, in a way, it actually bolsters Fraser’s position. Under the circumstances, “I doubt that she would’ve gotten the job without the implicit blessing of the regulators,” Wilmarth says. (Citi declined to comment.)

    Goldberg says Fraser’s track record means she’s well suited to meet the moment. Citi “is in need of some retooling,” he notes. “She has a lot of experience cleaning things up and turning things around.”

    Fraser echoes that point in conversation in October. In the face of any crisis, “I think it’s going back and saying, ‘What are some of the root causes and then how do you turn that into an opportunity to really leapfrog and take the bank to a different level?’?” Fraser says. “And then how do you galvanize the organization to work toward that? I did that with the private bank, did that with mortgages, did that in Mexico. And I’m excited to do it here too.”

    In September, Fraser was the first woman to get a Wall Street CEO job. Come February, she’ll be the first one to do the work.?

    A version of this article appears in the November 2020 issue of Fortune with the headline, “The first lady of Wall Street.”

    最新:
    • 熱讀文章
    • 熱門視頻
    活動
    掃碼打開財富Plus App
    快3玩法绝招