Story 311
Story 310: Thank you for your incisive analysis of Fortune’s seeming pay-to-play article on Jane Fraser.
I agree with every word and would just add that, like most of today’s leaders – male and female – she expects to have it both ways.
1. In the recent article by Barron’s, which I assume Citi “paid for” by way of promised advertising dollars, something Barron’s (and Forbes) are famous for, Fraser goes out of her way to say she doesn’t want to be remembered for being a female leader. She wants simply to be judged as an effective leader.
2. But in this Forbes article, she insinuates that she is critized more harshly because she is a woman, which means what? She is set up for a glass cliff or deserves a break because she’s a woman?
Both things can’t be true at once. You don’t get to forcibly brag about being as tough as a man while claiming victimhood for being a woman. 😂☠️🤪
It would be hilarious except it isn’t. She is paying herself $40M a year while treating life long employees like garbage easily taken the curb while gloating about her success.
She knows that her leadership decisions have been a mess from day one. And fortunately, karma comes for everyone eventually – in this life or the next.