I’ve been an analyst for about 18 months now, and I’m starting to realize that the path to associate isn’t as straightforward as my managing director made it sound during onboarding. Everyone talks about “putting in the work” and “building relationships,” but nobody really breaks down what that means in concrete terms.
I’ve started tracking my coffee chats—who I’m talking to, which groups they’re in, whether they’re on the partner track or not. I’m also monitoring deal flow and trying to understand which groups are actually promoting analysts versus just cycling them out. The thing is, I don’t know if I’m measuring the right stuff. Is it about raw numbers (how many coffees, how many senior bankers), or is it about the quality of those relationships? Are there actual metrics that distinguish analysts who make associate from those who don’t?
I’d love to hear from people who’ve actually made the jump—what were you tracking? Did you have a framework, or did you just kind of wing it and hope something stuck?
Track three core metrics: relationship depth (frequency of meaningful touchpoints with senior bankers), deal exposure (number of transactions where you had direct client or senior banker interaction), and internal visibility (mentions by partners or senior VPs in calibration meetings). Research shows analysts who make associate typically have 15-20 substantive relationships built over 2 years, with at least 8-10 deals where they had visible contribution. Quality matters more than volume—a coffee chat that leads to project work beats five generic introductions every time.
The data I’ve seen suggests that sponsorship strength is the ultimate metric. You can have 50 coffee chats, but if none of those people actively advocate for you in closed-door conversations, it doesn’t move the needle. Map your relationships by tier: tier one should be 2-3 senior bankers who know your work intimately, tier two should be 8-12 people who know your name and capabilities, tier three is everyone else. If you’re weak in tier one, your networking isn’t converting to opportunity.
lol here’s the thing nobody tells u—metrics are kinda bs if ur not in the right group or under the rght sponsor. i’ve seen analysts with perfect coffee chat spreadsheets and zero deals languish for years, while some kid with one mentor who actually likes him makes it in 18 months. track relationships sure, but honestly? if ur not on deals, ur metrics r just theater. focus on getting staffed, not on counting conversations.
this is so helpful! i’m tracking mine too but didnt know if i was doing it right. so like, depth over volume? that makes sense. ty for breaking it down. think a spreadsheet with group, seniority level, and touchpoints is good or am i overthinking?
You’re asking exactly the right questions! The fact that you’re being deliberate and tracking your progress is amazing. Keep building those relationships authentically, and the metrics will follow. You’ve got this!
I remember tracking spreadsheets like you’re doing, and honestly it was useful but also kinda soul-crushing some days. what actually changed for me was when I stopped optimizing for contact volume and started asking myself after each conversation: ‘Would this person bet money on me right now?’ That single question shifted everything. Suddenly my 30 coffees turned into 8 real relationships, and one of those folks became my champion to associate.