I’ve been thinking about the networking gap—a lot of people who break in successfully seem to have a mentor or sponsor already in place, or they’re naturally good at self-promoting. But for people like me who don’t have those built-in advantages, it feels like I’m figuring this out entirely alone. I read advice, I do what sounds smart, but there’s no real feedback loop or accountability.
Recently I started connecting with a few other analysts at different banks, and we’ve been having unfiltered conversations—not just venting, but actually pushing each other on stuff like ‘Hey, have you reached out to that VP yet?’ or ‘Here’s what I said in a coffee chat and it fell flat—let me try this angle.’ It’s been way more useful than I expected, partly because none of us are competitors (different banks, different groups) and partly because we actually care about each other’s progress.
I’m wondering if this could scale into something more deliberate—like a structured peer mentorship group focused specifically on promotion milestones and sponsor-building. Not a venting circle, but a real accountability machine. Has anyone tried anything like this before? Would it actually help, or is this just me trying to solve a problem that’s fundamentally about individual hustle? And if you were going to design this, what would actually need to happen in the group for it to stick and not just become another obligation that fizzles?
peer accountability groups work okay for low-stakes stuff, but when real money and careers are on the line, people get weird about sharing actual strategy. most of these groups end up being venting circles because nobody wants to explain their real tactics or their failures to people at competing banks. not saying it’s impossible, just saying the self-interest usually wins out eventually.
that said, if u can keep it small (3-4 people max) and actually commit to radical honesty, it’s way more useful than nothing. but structure matters—regular calls, specific goals, actual follow-up. no structure and it dies in two months.
oh so like the competitiveness thing is real but if u pick the right ppl (different banks helps) then it could work? thats good to know. structure seems key tho
im actually gonna try this with a couple ppl. scared itll fizzle but worth a shot rite?
Peer accountability groups can work, but success depends entirely on intentional design. The most effective ones I’ve observed shared three characteristics: first, they had explicit norms around confidentiality and radical honesty—people knew what stayed in the group. Second, they had lightweight structure—biweekly 45-minute calls with one person owning each agenda. Third, they had clear, measurable goals each member was tracking (coffee chats scheduled, deals owned, sponsors identified). The groups that failed typically lacked structure and drifted into casual catch-ups. The successful ones treated it like a professional commitment, not a friendship circle. If you’re considering this, start small with people you genuinely trust and who are willing to be uncomfortable about their actual obstacles, not just their wins.
I was actually part of a group like this—four of us from different banks who’d all graduated together. We did monthly calls and each person shared one thing they’d accomplished and one thing they were stuck on. Honestly, hearing what others were doing made me feel less alone, but the real value was when someone would say ‘I tried that and it didn’t work’ or ‘here’s what my mentor actually told me.’ Being able to learn from each other’s mistakes without competing was huge.
Cohort-based peer groups show measurable impact on promotion velocity when they meet three structural criteria: consistent meeting cadence (biweekly minimum), clear accountability metrics (shared goals tracked across meetings), and diversity of experience within the group (different banks, groups, or focuses). Groups that implement these factors see members moving to associate roughly 4-6 months faster on average than isolated peers, partly because they’re learning from collective experience rather than individual trial-and-error. The key is that structure and intentionality matter more than group size or total hours invested. Ad-hoc, unstructured peer groups show minimal tracked benefit.