I was told I had an independent opinion from the group—and that was a problem. Let us sit with that statement for a moment.
Early on, we had explicitly agreed that Risk Management should lead and have an independent and authoritative view, with group validation. By year-end, I was told that I had done what was agreed, and they didn’t want that. All the while acknowledging that this was culture change.
I have watched Managing Directors hold back their own points of view simply because someone else voiced a strong opinion that the room quickly rallied behind. The process was completed. The meetings took place. But if diverging views are stifled, we aren’t assessing exposure. We’re just agreeing with each other.
It’s troubling in the context of Citi’s consent order around Data and Risk Management. If risk management is evaluated on whether it maintains group harmony rather than on whether it identifies exposure, what are we actually transforming?
Here’s the paradox that stalls Citi USCC’s remediation efforts: systems can be rewritten on paper, but if the social penalty for telling the truth remains high, the culture wins every time.