The institution that Jane Fraser inherited was not serene. When she took over the corner office at Citigroup in 2021, she took charge of a bank that had become large, intricate, and subtly weary of its own expansion. Her task was to redraw the structure, not to beautify it.
Her tone was the first thing that caught their attention. The careful language that executives frequently use out of concern for internal reaction was much improved. Fraser rarely used romantic framing to soften results; instead, she talked bluntly, sometimes in an uncomfortable way. Her leadership style would eventually be known for being straightforward.
Citigroup has intentionally been getting smaller over the last few years. Complete consumer enterprises were shut down. Management layers were taken off. The number of internal reporting lines that many employees had committed to memory over the course of decades was drastically reduced. Complexity was no longer a sign of intellect, according to the constant message.
That mentality was encapsulated in a single statement that swiftly spread around Wall Street in Fraser’s January message to staff: “We are not graded on effort.” Our performance is used to judge us. It landed with the power of a line that editors typically cut rather than spread.
There were job losses afterward, but not all at once. They come instead as part of a larger reorganization plan that was previously revealed and aimed to eliminate some 20,000 jobs over a two-year period. Even while the change was well planned, it seemed seismic to a workforce used to stability via numbers.
| Name | Jane Fraser |
|---|---|
| Position | CEO and Chair of Citigroup |
| Born | July 13, 1967 (age 58) |
| Education | Harvard Business School; University of Cambridge |
| Key Milestones | Became Citigroup CEO in 2021; Chair in 2025 |
| Recent Focus | AI adoption, restructuring, cultural overhaul |
| Reference | Citigroup Leadership Profile |
The way work is done in the bank has been subtly changed by Citigroup through the use of automation and internal AI tools. More than 100,000 hours have been recovered weekly by software teams alone. This amount may seem insignificant, but picture entire floors of time suddenly coming back.
The headline isn’t the technology per se. How extensively it is used is more important. Citi’s internal AI technologies are now available to nearly 180,000 workers, simplifying repetitive jobs and changing productivity standards. It continuously hums, acting more like a background utility than a novelty.
Fraser says this change is especially good since it forces clarity rather than because it saves money. It is easier to assess human decisions when machines can tolerate repetition. The results become apparent. Excuses diminish.
She mentioned development prospects in Asia in an interview last year, but she also emphasized discipline at home. More accurately than any one memo, that combination of internal constraint and expansion defines her approach.
Fraser’s approach to transformation has an almost engineering feel to it. Systems are disassembled, reassembled, and stress-tested. Emotional appeals are not common. Accountability is presented as an asset rather than a danger.
As I read her correspondence, I was taken aback by how strongly she demanded execution while requesting very little believe.
The financial performance of Citigroup has stabilized, especially in wealth management and investment banking. Fraser has recognized those successes, but she views them as milestones rather than triumphs. She believed that if momentum isn’t encouraged, it quickly deteriorates.
She keeps bringing up the concept of habits. Not culture in the abstract, but routine actions that gradually accumulate. She claims that Citi is currently tearing down the issues that were caused by old habits. Instead of just encouraging new ones, they must be enforced.
Some employees have trouble with this. Performance cultures, particularly when combined with layoffs, can come across as harsh. However, Fraser seems to believe that ambiguity is more harmful than rigor. Even when the destination is difficult, her communications are remarkably clear about the bank’s direction.
In this situation, AI functions like a swarm of bees—individually tiny but collectively revolutionary—impacting thousands of workflows simultaneously while maintaining a strong human presence in leadership choices. The parallel is appropriate since intelligence is dispersed rather than concentrated.
Fraser’s detractors caution that constant measurement could stifle originality. Discipline, according to supporters, is what makes creativity relevant. The direction is not changing, but the dispute is.
Today’s Citigroup is more uniform, leaner, and far less forgiving of lethargy. That was not an accident, and it was not a quiet one. It was the result of hundreds of choices that prioritized long-term resilience over immediate comfort.
This time frame is not presented by Fraser as a tale of recovery. Her language is not heroic. Rather, she talks about creating something long-lasting, even if doing so means sacrificing popularity.
In an industry that is frequently dominated by tradition, Jane Fraser has taken a more difficult route: shrinking to become stronger, substituting evidence for effort, and believing that consistency in the application of clarity will be sufficient to move a 200,000-person institution ahead.
