Who Follows Jamie Dimon? The Future of JPMorgan | Fortune Daily

Walk me through a decision you made. Walk me through your growth strategy. Walk me through how you acquired a company. Walk me through how you made a hugely consequential decision and got everyone behind you. C-suite, fast feet and 10 Downing Street. Welcome to Fortune Daily. I'm Ellie Austin. So Scott Bassin just declared the K-shape economy dead. The data isn't convinced because in an interview this week, the Treasury Secretary said he's quote, sick of hearing about this K-shaped economy. Poor Scott. He rebranded it a C-shaped economy and essentially that's his way of saying that lower income workers are finally catching up to the top. He pointed to a 2% real wage gain for the bottom 25% of workers and to the new tax bill that cuts levies on tips and overtime and promise bigger after-tax paychecks. Now, there is some support for that story. The Bank of America says consumer spending, notably excluding gas, which we'll come back to in a second, no longer looks K-shaped on a year-over-year basis, if only for the last few weeks of this summer. But a lot of the hard numbers still say the split is very much alive. At no point this year have wages for the bottom 25% grown faster than the top. But what about discretionary spending? Well, three quarters of it is still coming out of the highest income households as they ride the soaring stock market. In other words, the well-to-do are still doing pretty well, but everyone else hasn't caught up yet, no matter what letter you use to describe the chart. So ultimately, Besson's declaration of the demise of the K ignores the pain at the gas pump and the nagging inflation that is rattling nerves in some pockets of Washington, D.C. as we head into the midterm elections later this year. Next, we're joined by Fortune leadership editor Ruth Umo to talk about Jamie Dimon's succession plan at JPMorgan and how the C-suite is evolving more broadly. Ruth, hello. Thank you for letting us drag you away from your desk to come and chat to us. I want to talk to you about the JPMorgan succession race. Now, as far as we know, Jamie Dimon isn't retiring anytime soon. Tell me if you know differently. I don't know any different. Why is it always in the headlines? It's always in the headlines because this is the biggest bank. This is a man who has been in this corner office role for some three decades at this point. Policymakers are paying attention to him. Lobbyists are paying attention to him. Certainly his peers in the financial and banking world and also is just quite industry agnostic in the tech world. He is someone who is so heralded and so very much respected. And so whoever ends up being his successor will have such power and influence and sway not only over financial markets, but certainly the biggest bank globally. So the bank recently announced the appointment of two co-presidents. Correct. What does this tell us about the culture at JPMorgan and what the next few years could look like? Yeah, so the big thing is commercial banking and investment banking. I will say that for the longest time, people thought it would be two women. I think that there's a lot of shock by the fact that it wasn't Mary Erdos or Jen, who is now the COO of JPMorgan. But I think that it says like they're really doubling down into where they see as their next growth platforms. Investment banking is going to be huge. Certainly commercial and consumer banking is going to be huge. And so those are two roles that they're really accelerated into these higher, more preeminent positions. Does it have broader meaning for the business landscape that these two co-presidents are white men? It depends who you ask. I'm not in Jamie Dimon's head. You're not? Believe it or not, I'm not in Jamie Dimon's head. One could argue that we're seeing this shift, post-2020, post-George Floyd. There was a hugely vociferous and forceful push to promote people of color to the corner office, to C-suite positions more broadly. And we've certainly seen a retraction since then. I don't know if it speaks to the broader culture, but certainly when it comes to what is next for JPMorgan, they keep saying it's about the business itself. It's unfortunate that it isn't women. We saw, I mean, the only woman that's ever been appointed to the corner office at a major financial institution, certainly here in the US, is Jane Fraser. Number one on our MPW list. And so I think a lot of people are hoping to see the same at the largest bank in the world. You've written a lot about this concept of the everything executive, where multiple different functions are consolidated at the CEO level. Is that a result of a change in our expectations around leadership, or is it a cost-cutting method? I think it's an amalgamation of the two. So many cost efficiency. I mean, we heard around 2022, a lot of tech CEOs were saying, this is the era of efficiency. And that broadly targeted middle managers, and they were slashing that middle management chain. We are seeing that funnel up certainly at the top. And so you see, for instance, someone historically would have domain expertise. They were chief marketing officer, and what would they focus on? Brand, advertising, the creative aspects. Now you're seeing the expansion, explosion of certain remits. You're not just the marketing chief, you're also the head of revenue, head of product. You look at Home Depot where Molly Batten is the CMO, but product funnels into her. And so you're seeing that they're overseeing this broad swath of functions and remits. So certainly part of it is cost efficiency. I also think that there's this pivot from focusing just on siloed business function. And again, that domain or expertise to what is the business outcome? If I am at Microsoft and I am really pushing for AI and growth and accelerating that aspect, maybe what I do is I put all these functions together and I have someone oversee all of them. And their remit, their focus area is on a one concerted business function. I've heard you write a lot in your reporting about the increased importance of EQ, emotional intelligence, in the search for the next generation of CEOs. That both surprised me and actually really delighted me in a sense that that's so valuable. Tell me a bit about why EQ, emotional intelligence, seems to matter so much in this moment. Yeah, I mean, certainly what we call the quote unquote hard skills still matter, right? If you're in tech, you have to have a mindset for product innovation. If you're in financial services or in banking, you have to understand risk and capital allocation and just the regulatory market. But I think that there are also these soft skills that are really so profound and hugely important yet again. And so things like emotional intelligence, things like loyalty, can you build employee followership? Can you galvanize your employees and get them all rowing in the same boat? Things like humility, for instance, things like having a vision and being able to communicate said vision and getting everyone to understand it and really back you. And then one thing that I'll certainly say, I think is hugely important, even just beyond emotional intelligence. I remember I interviewed Courtney DeLaCava. She was then the senior managing director at Blackstone. They have some 250 portfolio companies. And she said stamina and mental processing speed is also hugely important. And that is not just how intelligent are you. It's like your decision-making prowess. How quickly can you kind of pick yourself back up? That mental agility, that mental acuity is also hugely important. All of that comprises EQ. How on earth are boards measuring something like stamina when they're evaluating potential CEO candidates? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think that's a fantastic question, Ellie. I'll use Blackstone as an example. I mean, they have a five-hour aptitude test that they have CEO candidates sit through. And so they're sitting there and they're asking them questions like, walk me through a decision you made. Walk me through your growth strategy. Walk me through how you acquired a company. Walk me through how you made a hugely consequential decision and got everyone behind you. When I also interviewed Meredith Kobat-Levian, she is the now CEO of the New York Times. She was previously the COO. And I said, tell me the truth. Is it all that different? I mean, the COO is very much known as a stepping stone to the corner office. And she said it is hugely different because of the stamina that is required. It is a high-performance sport to be a CEO. You almost have to think and operate like an Olympian. And so that's quite different than any other role because the burden just truly falls on you in its total capacity. That's so fascinating. I was recently chatting to our colleague, Rachel Ventresca, who is our director of audience, about this trend we're seeing of CEOs also becoming external faces of the brand and showing up on social media. To be an effective CEO in 2026, do you also have to be an influencer? I don't think you necessarily have to be an influencer. And I also think it depends how you define that. I think that visibility is important as you think about the trust of the brand, as you think of the authenticity of the brand. I mean, let's use Blackstone yet again. John Gray, he's the COO, more than likely the heir apparent to their current CEO. And he likes to go on these runs on LinkedIn and he posts them and people comment. And they see him as this very affable guy, this very warm guy who also is quite brilliant and can speak about asset management, right? That's what the company does. But at the same time, you want to feel like it's authentic to you. Warren Buffett and his successor are quite different. Warren Buffett, again, very warm. He'd have these yearly town halls, so to speak, where you bring all the shareholders. And he was known for his Buffettisms. Not everyone is like that. And so you have to do what's important to you. I do think visibility is important, but sometimes people overshoot. In August 2022, there was a CEO and he was crying after he had to implement layoffs. And people felt that it was very inauthentic and it pivoted the conversation from the fact that people were harmed by these sweep and layoffs to him and his emotions and feelings. And they felt that it was very inauthentic. So again, I think that that's something you'd have to think about, the vulnerability, but how does it balance and pair with the authenticity and what you bring to that? So let's bring all this together. If you're an ambitious person with hopes of leading one day, whether that be your team or your company, what skills should you be focusing on right now? I'd say drilling depth is super important, especially in the beginning. I think that's the foundation. But I think the catalyst is to say, okay, I'm an expert in this particular function, but what other skills can I pick up? What larger projects can I take on? So I can show that I'm not just very siloed in one particular area, but I have a breadth of expertise and capabilities. And so we see that, for instance, we were talking at the top of this conversation about the fact that more C-suite positions are focused on not just one domain, but several functions that are now funneling into one. And it's hard to do that if you only know one thing. So what I hear time and time again is the importance and the prevalence of getting deep and then going broad. And then again, humility, loyalty, building that followership, having that agility, being able to see the trends, what's coming around the corner. And obviously, and most important, building those hard skills that are germane to your particular function and industry. There's another subject I want to talk to you about in a second, so stay where you are. But first up, I'm chatting to Fortune's Executive Editorial Director, Kamal Ahmed, about the anatomy of a deal and how Andy Burnham became UK Prime Minister, seemingly overnight. Hello, Kamal. Thank you so much for joining us from London. I think as two Brits, we can probably acknowledge that the UK has become a bit of a global laughingstock recently for the rate at which we have churned through Prime Ministers. Andy Burnham is the latest. So it seems that one week he was the Mayor of Manchester, next week he's the Prime Minister. How did he steal the deal and get himself into Downing Street this summer? You're absolutely right, Ellie, and it's a joy to join you from London. Andy Burnham is the seventh Prime Minister in 10 years, and we always used to, in London, laugh a bit at the Italians because they had lots and lots of Prime Ministers. But now, as you say, we've taken over that mantle of lack of political stability. I think the main reason for Andy Burnham's meteoric rise from Mayor of Manchester is actually down to the dislike by the British public of the Prime Minister at the time, before Andy Burnham, who was Keir Starmer. And Keir Starmer had a really tough journey from winning the general election in 2024 to today. It was his unpopularity that led to Andy Burnham's popularity. Poor Keir, some might say. So one of the things that Burnham is promising is economic renewal across the country, in the South, yes, but also in the North, where he is from. How do you rate his chances of achieving that? It's been a real struggle for the United Kingdom. I think we can go right back to the financial crisis. I think people forget how much banking is part of the United Kingdom economy. I'm speaking to you from London, the globally significant financial capital. That financial crisis really affected the economy here. We've not really had solid growth since 2007, 2008. Productivity is very, very poor. People's real wages for the majority of years since the financial crisis have gone down. Now, whether one man in number 10 can really affect that, I think is up for debate. Has he yet been able to make the radical changes we need here about being pro-business? The fundamental changes, though, were not there yet. Will he have a chance of doing that? It's a huge issue for the United Kingdom, in a way that it was for a period in America. But your economy, the US economy, has grown so much faster in comparison with the United Kingdom economy and the European economy here that the difference between the two economies is really stark. Can we find some of that entrepreneurial spirit that you have much more visible in the United States? That remains to be seen. Let's stay on the subject of the US versus the UK. So in one of the first days of his premiership, Burnham got on the phone with President Trump. Burnham identifies as a socialist. They are two very different men, I think it's fair to say. Both got off the phone and said positive things about one another. What should we watch out for in this relationship between Burnham and Trump as it evolves? I think Andy Burnham is actually quite a difficult journey to make with Donald Trump. The general position of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom is not pro the President of the United States. And in this country, the Prime Minister relies on the support of their MPs to stay in power. So he's got to take this quite delicately. But I think Andy Burnham and, frankly, most of the serious players in the Labour Party also understand realpolitik. There is no point in the United Kingdom becoming an enemy of America or a critic of America because we are so closely intertwined, not just culturally, but also, more importantly, for the economy in our business and the way that we operate. So the trade deals, the avoidance of some tariffs, which the UK has managed to avoid because of the relationships between our two countries, those are really vital to Andy Burnham. One thing he has shown is that he can think smartly about what is best for the UK generally, not simply what is best for his own politics. Kamal, it's always great to chat to you. Thanks so much for calling us from London. Every world record is falling at the moment, and it is because of the technology. Nike and Adidas have dominated performance running for decades, then on a step to the starting line. We were kind of afraid the shoe would fall apart and she ended up winning Boston. Its sneakers appear on marathon podiums. They're also shown up in airport terminals, art fairs and even fashion week. The company wants to become far more than a running shoe brand. Your identity is expressed through your body. The shoes tells you a story, it's a feeling. But as On expands into apparel and accessories, it risks losing focus on the high-performance running shoes that put it on the map. The question is, can this underdog become the next great sportswear company without losing the performance DNA that made runners believe in it? The biggest risk is not to take the risk and we said, hey, let's go all in. What's there to lose? So we just saw a clip from your behind the business trip. I have to say, quite jealous of you getting to go to the On headquarters in Zurich. That's one of the better work trips. Well, there was a heat wave at the time. There was no air conditioning, so I don't know how jealous you should be. So On running shoes, there is so much competition right now in the running market. There's Hoka, there's Brooks, there's Nike, there's Adidas. How does On consider itself to be different from the competition? They don't consider themselves a luxury brand, but quite frankly, they're a luxury brand and they found this really interesting niche, which is affluent, suburban, commuter-type folks. When you run through Central Park here in New York City, when you run along the West Side Highway, that's what you're seeing. These affluent types who are wearing the shoe and there's a bit of a status symbol, but they are very much a premium sportswear brand. They recently broke a record, a marathon record with Helen Oribi. And so they're again positioning themselves as the preeminent running shoe and again focusing on sports performance. How much does the On running shoes success in marathons with someone like Helen who you just mentioned impact retail for the average athlete, like say me or you? I'd say that it does matter. It does matter. I mean, you look at Nike, for instance, and they have shoes, they're named after Serena Williams or LeBron James. And so that branding aspect and the halo effect in advertising, it certainly matters. But I mean, you go to a hospital, you see doctors wearing Ons. You go, again, as I said, for a run along Central Park, you see people wearing those shoes. They are looking, however, yes, to making their brand centered and that fulcrum around premium sportswear, around marathon running, for instance. But they're also pivoting and they're expanding to now also going into like, look, these are clothes that you'd want to wear. They're comfortable, they're chic. They partnered with Loewe. They partnered with Zendaya, the actress. And so they're looking to, again, still center their gravity, the gravity of center around sports performance and running, but pivot beyond that and really expand. In your video, you saw them make this new super light shoe called the Lightspray using a robotic arm. And this shoe is made in three minutes flat. What does that mean for the business model and Ons' ability to compete with those juggernauts of sport? Yeah, well, I will say On is growing at a rapid clip, but they are still quite small compared to their, you know, legacy competitors. You know, Nike has a market cap of roughly $63 billion. Look at Adidas, which is a Germany-based company. They're around $35 billion. On's market cap is around $15 billion with about three billion Swiss francs. That's about 3.7 US dollars. And so they are fast ascending, but they are still not at that same scale. When we look at the technology in particular, I think that is what they're known for. Olivier Bernard, who really came up with this concept, he was like, hey, I don't love the shoes that are on the market. I'm going to create this prototype. I'm going to cut pieces of a hose, stick them to the bottom of the shoe, and I want that balance and that airiness. And that has since taken off. And so innovation and biochemistry and technology has really been at the center of the brand really since its early days. And you're still seeing that. When you look at Lightspray, for instance, I mean, they're not creating the entire shoe in three minutes, just the upper. But historically, when you're creating a shoe, it was about 200 different parts, lots of humans involved in the process. Typically, you'd have it done in Asia, and then you'd bring it back over to the US or any other country. And so there were so many steps involved, and this cuts down considerably on all of that. 200 to 300 hours of human work that will soon be dissipated, especially if they can do this at scale. There's a lot of pushback to that. We posted the video of how the Lightspray technology works on our social media platforms. The comments in some ways were understandable, but also horrific. I mean, people truly terrified about the robotic prowess and what it does to labor, human labor in particular. And so that's certainly a conversation that we're going to have as we move forward. But you look at the other aspect, it cuts down on things like carbon emissions, 75%. It brings things closer to the consumer. So when you think about the supply chain having to shift something from one side of the country to the other, it certainly brings it all closer. So again, a lot of conversations, ethical conversations to be had. But in terms of just the raw mechanics and the technology, it is hugely fascinating. Joya Zaba, where can people find you if they want to see more of your reporting? Yeah, follow me on LinkedIn. Follow me, obviously, on fortune.com. And I do have an Instagram. So Ruth Umo. Thank you, Ruth. And let me know if you ever want to go for a run. Oh, let's do it today. That's it for Fortune Daily. I'm Ellie Austin. We'll see you next time.