I’ve been thinking about networking like I’d think about project management at the bank—setting targets, measuring activity, and iterating based on results. The idea is to turn the vague ‘network more for a summer internship’ into something concrete with actual milestones.
So here’s the structure I’m considering: Days 1-30, focus on building my list and getting warm intros set up. Days 31-60, actually execute the coffee chats and gather feedback. Days 61-90, convert conversations into actual meetings with decisionmakers and maintain pipeline.
Obviously this is based on the assumption that the more structured and intentional you are, the better results you get. But I’m wondering if that’s actually true or if I’m overthinking it. Like, does banking actually hire on a timeline that this planning makes sense for? Or is it random enough that micro-planning is pointless?
Also, I’m curious if the people who landed summer offers did anything like this consciously, or if they just networked organically and it happened to work out.
Has anyone here actually run a structured outreach plan and seen it actually move the needle? Or is that kind of project-management approach to networking kind of overkill?
structuring it like a project is overkill but not wrong. banking does hire on a timeline—recruiting seasons are real. so yes, the window matters. the problem is your metrics are probably wrong. don’t measure ‘coffees scheduled.’ measure ‘warm intros sourced’ and ‘sponsor-level conversations.’ if you’re tracking meetings but they’re all with junior people, you’re spinning wheels. timing matters but quality of connection matters more.
the people who landed offers didn’t consciously plan—they just knew someone or knew someone who knew someone. but if you’re starting from zero, yeah, impose structure. just make sure you’re measuring impact, not activity. go after specific people at specific firms, not ‘more coffees.’
so im like measuring the wrong things if i count number of coffees vs quality? good to kno
this makes sense but like how do u even know if an intro is high quality til u actually have the convo
ill def change how im measuring this gotta focus on what actually matters not just activity
Structure absolutely helps, particularly if you lack existing relationships. A 30/60/90 framework is practical, but refine your targeting. First 30 days should focus on: identifying 15-20 specific roles at target firms, backlinking to find warm introducers in your network, and crafting personalized outreach to those introducers. Success metric is number of warm intros sourced, not outreach sent. Days 31-60 should be execution—those actual conversations—where you’re gathering intelligence and asking specifically about team dynamics and hiring timelines. Success metric here is depth of learnings and quality of the relationships formed. Final 30 should focus on converting the highest-potential conversations into sponsor-level introductions to hiring managers or MDs.
The timeline is realistic if you account for banking’s recruiting calendar. Bulge brackets typically finalize summer hiring by late November/early December for the following summer. This means you want substantive conversations happening by September-October. A 90-day sprint begining in July-August aligns well with that window. People who land offers organically usually had some relationship built-in or benefited from recruiter attention—which is luck. You’re building a system because you need one. That’s not overkill, it’s necessary.
I love that you’re being strategic about this. Structure plus authenticity is the perfect combo. You’re going to nail this sprint!
Having a plan is so much better than hoping something happens. You’ve already set yourself up for success with this mindset!
I actually did something similar without calling it a 30/60/90 plan. First month I made a list of every person from my school at my target firms—like, created a spreadsheet. Second month I started reaching out through people I knew. Third month I was having actual conversations. It worked because I had a system instead of randomly emailing people. The structure kept me honest about activity and helped me spot patterns in what was working.
The timeline stuff is real too. I started way too late and was rushing in October when things were already locked. Starting in summer and having conversations through fall made a huge difference. By December everyone’s minds were made up on their summer class. the structure+timing combo matters
Timing is decisive. Candidates who begin outreach by late July-early August and complete substantive conversations by mid-October show 50-65% interview conversion rate. Those starting outreach in September-October show 20-35% conversion rate. The timeline compression matters significantly—recruiters finalize slates by November, so decision-makers need to have already formed opinions.
Measurement framework that correlates with outcomes: track warm intro success rate (target 40-50%), conversation quality score (subjective: 1-5 based on depth and relationship potential), and decision-maker access (percentage of conversations with MD/VP level vs analyst level). Candidates hitting 8-10 high-quality conversations with MD/VP-level contacts combined with strong follow-up show highest success rates. Activity metrics (emails sent, coffees scheduled) are poor predictors of outcomes.