Is Your Leadership Playbook Built for One Culture in a Borderless World? — Arne Graeber, Commerzbank

Arne Graeber’s career began in corporate and investment banking in Northern Germany in 2010, where proximity to the automotive sector first connected him to global trade. A short coverage assignment to China in 2011 became the turning point of his professional life: he was struck by how German corporates were investing in the region’s growth and by a local mindset that reached for solutions rather than dwelling on problems. After further roles in Germany and a strategic posting in Shanghai, he was permanently relocated to Asia in 2015, moving through Hong Kong and Shanghai before becoming regional head for trade and cash operations across Asia and the Middle East. 

He later moved into an executive role leading the build-out of a service hub in Malaysia — a relocation made during the height of COVID border closures. Today, based in Kuala Lumpur, he runs an operation of nearly 1,000 people and serves as Treasurer of the Malaysian-German Chamber of Commerce and Industry, supporting trade and investment flows between Europe and Malaysia.

Can you share the story of your career and what shaped your leadership path?

Arne traces a journey from Northern Germany to a decade-plus across Asia, and the moment that redirected his career.

I started back in 2010 in the banking space in Northern Germany, joining corporate and investment banking. Being close to the automotive sector, we covered corporates and suppliers in that space, and at that time, my boss asked whether I would mind going to Asia for a coverage role of three to four months. That was in 2011, and I was sent to China for the first time. Ultimately, in 2015, [I] received an accord to be permanently sent to Asia, first to Hong Kong in transaction banking on the regulatory side, then to Shanghai, where I stayed for three years and became regional head for trade and cash operations for Asia and the Middle East.

Eventually, I moved to Singapore, doing the same role, taking care of the entity we had built up in Malaysia, where I was on the supervisory side. The bank was struggling a little on profitability there, and the board asked me to come up with a clear strategy. We then did a swap: I moved from the supervisory side into the executive role. Over the last four and a half years, I built up that centre and the management team across two locations, and more recently joined the board of the Malaysian-German Chamber, where I am now also Treasurer.

What moment defined your professional direction?

On why a planned two- to three-year stint in Asia became a decade and counting.

Initially, I only wanted to go to Asia for two to three years — that is how the contracts were. But over time, I really came to believe in the economies. There was a lot of movement happening in Asia, very different to how Europe was developing. Growth rates were high, and a lot of good decisions and investments happened, while Europe suffered somewhat from crisis, war, inflation, and everything that triggered.

I was always treated well, both in terms of the job and with my family here, so I enjoyed being here — but it was mainly driven by the job, because I liked it. As long as you like the environment, you stay. The beauty was experiencing very different cultures across my time in different locations, rather than spending ten years in one. That helped me understand how leadership works differently across countries, because leading a team in Germany or Europe is very different to leading one in the US, in China, or in Malaysia.

How has working across different countries influenced your approach to leadership?

Arne explains why a single leadership mindset fails in a multinational environment, and how culture cascades into performance.

I had my first leadership role in Shanghai in early 2018, and over time, I realised that what you may have learned in training or seen in your own leadership team in Germany does not necessarily work in Asia. Being in a German organisation, I often had to transport that message back to [the] head office. When they said, “Let’s take this approach and this communication”, I had to say: Hang on, that may work there, but it doesn’t work here.

If you arrive with only your German or European mindset and try to lead in Asia, you will very quickly end up unsuccessful, or you think you are successful, but you lose the team. You may be rowing in one direction while the entire team is unconsciously rowing in the other. Leadership drives culture, and culture drives performance — and other things, like attrition. In Asia, societies tend to be younger by demographics than in Europe. If people are not happy and don’t see the value, they will change jobs more often, so poor leaders end up with high attrition. In Europe, where demographics are older, people in their mid-fifties may not move regardless of whether the leadership is good.

So there are different dynamics to be aware of, including how different ethnicities function well together.

How exactly did teams in China think differently about problems?

On the mindset shift that became a leadership principle, and how he now expects it of his teams.

When I worked in organisations in Europe, when there was a problem — and this has something to do with demographics again — people were more quickly disappointed, talked about the problem for a long time, and gave up more easily. When I moved to China, there were plenty of problems too, but people did not spend so much time on the problem. They thought: It’s not perfect, but let’s try something, let’s try option A, B, or C. With that approach, China has done very well in a lot of areas and overtaken many industries and technologies from where they used to be.

What I learned there was to always come not just with a problem, but with a possible solution — option A, option B, and a recommendation. That’s what I encourage our people to do. Those who can solve problems and stay positive rather than getting demotivated are far more inspiring and easier to deal with — the same is true in private life as in the job. If I had managers who were constantly negative and spread that negativity, I would have exactly the organisation I don’t want. It needs to come from the top, with the spirit to accept and lead change, and a culture that drives intrinsic motivation. 

What key strategic shifts have you seen in global trade and supply chain finance?

Arne unpacks how geopolitics, technology, and shifting supply chains are reshaping a traditionally stable set of products.

What has changed is that a lot of technology and AI now helps automate processes, because there is still a great deal of paper. Global supply chains have also massively shifted — because of the Russian dependency on energy, geopolitical problems in the Middle East, and the China-plus-one strategy. That shift leads companies to diversify away from a single supplier. When you find new buyers or sellers you don’t yet trust, you engage in letters of credit, which take risk and offer financing opportunities.

On cash management, the network and speed clients expect has changed a lot. Instant payments are needed, along with central bank digital currencies and different settlement routes, and real-time visibility becomes key to managing liquidity. For a bank, that means your operating model must support clients along the value chain, including sanction screening that functions around the clock. Which means you either need fully automated AI screening or people working [on-site] or in a service hub somewhere that can cater for a 24/7 or 24/5 model.

In a nutshell, digitalisation has increased client expectations and transparency. Are we fully utilising the potential? Not yet — there is still a lot of wood to chop, particularly on the letter-of-credit side, but step by step we are getting there.

What is the biggest challenge for global financial institutions?

On why digitising the paper chain stalls the moment a single party in the network can’t keep up.

There have been various market initiatives to digitise the entire paper chain. Within a single country it’s not a problem, but in global trade you often have many parties — sometimes thirty — involved in a transaction, with a lot of documents across different jurisdictions. It only takes one party that is not yet capable of being fully digital, perhaps because their country does not accept the electronic model law, to leave you stuck with paper.

The initiatives we had attracted a number of interested banks and worked, but not for the mainstream. You have to consider many emerging markets on the rise — in Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America — that are delivering high growth and new supply chains, but are sometimes behind on digitalisation, or don’t see the need, or lack the funds to fully invest. If the entire financial supply chain is not on the same platform, it becomes difficult. There are a few initiatives moving, but very slowly. You also have countries with older demographics that have done things the same way for many years and are more reluctant to change. That’s why those initiatives have not yet reached mainstream success.

What is the biggest opportunity for global financial institutions?

Arne quantifies what a fully digital financial supply chain could unlock.

The biggest opportunity is reducing time to market by easily ten days. I’m not talking about the physical supply chain — goods are mostly on vessels or aircraft, and you can’t really expedite that — but the financial supply chain underneath can be expedited. Right now, it takes two or three days to prepare all the documents, then another two or three days at the exporter’s bank to check them for compliance, sanctions, and UCP rules. For a transaction from Asia to Europe, sending the documents physically by air can take around three days to arrive, after which the other bank checks them again and passes them to the port authority or the buyer.

That process easily runs to ten days. If it could be exchanged within days or even hours, it would shorten and improve the cash conversion cycle for both buyer and seller. Holding physical documents for three days at each bank can also delay the retrieval of goods at the port, even when the goods have already arrived. Beyond speed and cash flow, going digital can also reduce fraud risk, because physical paper always carries document fraud risk, so it mitigates risk as well.

How do you see the role of thought leadership evolving in the industry?

On why a fail-fast mentality and genuine cross-sector collaboration matter more than waiting for others to move.

The role is to think outside the box. We can continue doing what we’ve always done on the trade side — the instruments are very old, they function, and they’re in high demand. Last year, in 2025, we again saw an increase in letter-of-credit transactions and in value confirmed globally. But it needs leaders who prepare the setup for the next level of growth and digitalisation. The banks on the forefront, rather than those waiting, will be much faster to take market share.

It needs a clear strategic vision and a fail-fast mentality in the teams, and a product team that isn’t tied up in business-as-usual but focuses on innovation and works closely with the industry. As a bank, I shouldn’t plan something in isolation; I should sit with clients — the corporates buying and selling goods — and with the shipping industry or port authorities, in working groups, so there’s a collaborative effort in the right direction. It needs clear collaboration across the public and private sectors, even government authorities, in a small, innovative lab environment where ideas are tested as proofs of concept that either fail or deliver.

Right now, everyone is somewhat in a holding pattern, saying AI is great and can do so much, but only putting forward small, selective use cases. A lot more can be done if collaboration across industries and across countries functions well.

Is greater collaboration across stakeholders something you see as lacking at the moment?

Arne reflects on why earlier fintech-led efforts stalled and what could be fostered instead.

In the past, I was personally more engaged in some of these efforts, but after more than five of those fintechs went bankrupt or were sold because they weren’t unleashing the full potential, a lot of banks moved into holding patterns or developed their own solutions. I wouldn’t say partnerships are lacking — some banks and corporates have fintechs. What could be fostered more is exchange across jurisdictions and across parties to develop something together, perhaps through a consortium.

It’s always the same tension: banks are in competition, and corporates are in competition. A few things are happening, but I don’t see anything major in the trade finance space yet — nothing that replaces all the paper, or offers an alternative to systems like SWIFT for settlement or for issuing letters of credit. Right now, it’s still very much the traditional way, with a few ideas and digital documents submitted here and there. That’s my personal opinion.

What do you find most valuable about industry events and webinars?

On using diverse panels for inspiration that he can test against his own business model and share with his teams.

I like joining events when there’s a variety of panellists on the same topic but from different angles — government, industry, and so on. You take back small inspirations and think about them critically in relation to your own business model. That makes me think as a leader and then discuss it with my teams: is our business model sustainable, how can technology help, or how could it have a negative impact on our margins? It’s about continuously challenging the status quo.

I like sharing my own opinion in panels, seminars, and round tables — it may help others who haven’t gone through the same thing, perhaps in their first role in a certain country — but I also want to get something out of it for my own personal growth, which I can then share with our teams to make sure we’re prepared for the next level. As I said, if I don’t have a clear vision, people feel it, and you see it in performance. So if I believe the topic makes sense, I’m always happy to join — to retrieve information and to share my experience and expertise.

What makes an event truly impactful for you, and what advice would you give organisers?

Arne argues for future-oriented, real use-case sharing over company marketing.

It needs to be future-oriented. Sometimes panels or seminars talk about the past, or just showcase what a company is doing as a form of marketing. That can be nice, but I’m not a fan of it. What I like most are real use cases that have been applied in a certain industry. Say an insurance company has applied a use case — to do with technology, or with changing its target operating model — that sharing can be very relevant to other industries that have nothing to do with insurance, simply as inspiration.

It triggers thinking: this person had that problem, explained it, and came up with a solution, or used technology in this way — and maybe the same applies to a machinery company that still prepares invoices manually rather than having them generated directly from a database and sent out automatically. I like that cross-industry know-how and sharing, because it shows how far advanced different industries are in their mindset; some are far behind others. That, personally, is where I see a lot of value.

What story from a speaking engagement had a lasting influence on you?

Arne recounts a story of persistence in the face of ridicule that he found truly inspiring.

I recently heard someone share how, in the early days around 2010, a lot of people laughed at what he wanted to do with technology. Everyone was comfortable where they were — resistant, not willing to change, not listening. He explained how he treated the people who laughed at him, and how they reacted once he had moved up, developed something great that is now used by almost everyone, and had his company purchased by a very large company. Now those same people are begging to come back to something similar.

That taught me how important it is to have the right people on board. Those who were comfortable and unwilling to take any risk at the time now want to ride the wave of success. I admired that person because he was persistent and didn’t give a damn about the views of others — he was convinced, had a very clear path, deviated a little down the road, but never gave up. In the end he was a very successful entrepreneur. 

Join the Conversation: The Ortus Club’s Executive Network

As Arne’s experience shows, the challenges facing transaction banking and trade finance — cross-cultural leadership, real-time settlement, and the slow digitalisation of global trade — are rarely solved in isolation. Leaders at this level increasingly rely on structured peer dialogue to test assumptions, compare regional approaches, and refine their operating models in real time.

His belief in solution-driven thinking and genuine collaboration reflects a broader reality: the most effective executives, especially those orchestrating complex global supply chains, actively seek out cross-industry exchange as a strategic necessity rather than a nice-to-have.

At The Ortus Club, we host curated executive roundtables that bring together senior leaders facing these exact challenges. Step away from the holding pattern and engage in the kind of open, high-value conversations that bridge the gap between global strategy and localised execution.

FAQs Section

Q: What is “solution-driven thinking” in a leadership context?

A: It is the practice of approaching obstacles with options and a recommendation rather than dwelling on the problem itself. Arne encourages teams, down to interns, to bring a possible solution or a choice between options when raising an issue.

Q: Why must leadership styles be adapted across cultures?

A: Communication, feedback, and team management that work in one country can fail in another. Because leadership drives culture, and culture drives performance and retention, applying a single mindset risks losing the team, particularly among younger demographics, where attrition is more sensitive to poor leadership.

Q: How is technology changing trade finance?

A: The core instruments, such as letters of credit, remain largely unchanged, but AI and automation are reshaping the paper-heavy processes around them. Real-time and instant payments also demand operating models that can run sanction screening and settlement around the clock.

Q: Why is digitising the global trade paper chain so difficult?

A: A single transaction can involve many parties across multiple jurisdictions. If even one party cannot operate fully digitally, the chain reverts to paper, which is why no initiative has yet achieved mainstream adoption.

Q: What is the potential benefit of a fully digital financial supply chain?

A: It could reduce time to market by roughly ten days, improving the cash conversion cycle for buyers and sellers, speeding the retrieval of goods at port, and reducing the fraud risk associated with physical documents.