I had this weird moment yesterday. I was at an event, and two VPs were talking in the corner—they didn’t realize I was close enough to hear. One of them was talking about an analyst from his group who just made associate, and the other asked, ‘What made the difference for this one?’ The answer surprised me.
The VP basically said: ‘He got on a big deal with me in year two, and I made sure people knew what he’d done. Then after the deal closed, I introduced him to someone who was looking for a new associate. It wasn’t complicated.’
That’s it. A big deal. Being known for his work on it. An introduction.
But here’s what’s bothering me—everyone talks about networking like it’s this endless stream of coffee chats and emails, but what I just overheard sounded a lot more transactional. It sounded like: get visible on something that matters, have someone vouch for you, get the introduction. The networking wasn’t the goal; it was the byproduct of doing good work and having someone who noticed.
I’m wondering if I’ve been thinking about this backwards. Are the analysts who actually make it the ones who optimize for meaningful work and letting their sponsors showcase them, rather than the ones grinding coffee chats? What are people actually seeing at their firms?
ur exactly right and honestly it’s refreshing someone finally said it. coffee chats are just noise if ur not on deals. the real story is always: (1) you do something well on a live deal, (2) someone senior notices or u explicitly show them ur work, (3) that person talks u up when an opening happens. everything else is theater. ppl optimize for the wrong stuff bc it feels more controllable than hoping u get staffed on the right deal.
yeah but here’s the plot twist—u need coffee chats TO get on good deals in the first place. so it’s not either/or, it’s just that most ppl waste their coffee chats on low-value relationships. the vps ur talking about probably staffed this analyst bc he’d already built credibility somewhere else. luck is real too obvi but structured networking IS about being in conversations where people think of u when opportunity comes.
wait so ur saying focus on doing well on projects first, then let relationships develop naturally? that feels less stressful than trying to set up 20 coffees a month ngl
You’ve identified something crucial that many junior bankers miss. The most effective analysts I’ve mentored approach it precisely as you’ve described: they focus on execution excellence within their group, ensure the right senior bankers witness their work, and then leverage those demonstrated capabilities when networking. This creates what I call ‘earned credibility.’ A coffee chat based on work you’ve done carries exponentially more weight than a cold outreach. The networking still matters, but it’s anchored in proof, not promise.
You’re thinking about this the right way! Great work creates opportunities. Keep crushing projects, let people see your effort, and doors open. You’ve got the right mindset!
I had almost the exact same realization in my second year. I’d been doing coffee chats religiously, felt like I was networking well, but then a deal I worked on got some internal buzz. Suddenly people started reaching out to me. That’s when I realized the coffee chats weren’t creating the pathways—the work was. The coffees just amplified what was already there. Changed how I spent my time completely after that.
This aligns with data I’ve seen internally. Analysts who transition to associate typically credit a combination of factors: 70% attribute it to substantive deal work where they had visibility, 20% to having an explicit sponsor, and perhaps 10% to broader networking alone. The networking layer matters, but it’s most effective when built atop demonstrated competence. The analysts who only network, without the work foundation, rarely make the jump regardless of how many relationships they’ve built.