I’m trying to get systematic about networking for a summer analyst role, and I keep going back and forth on whether I should actually build a target list or if that kills the organic feel of things. Like, part of me gets it—you need to focus your energy somewhere. But another part feels like having a spreadsheet of bankers is somehow… inauthentic? Or will they sense that I’m working through a list?
I’ve heard from a few people that the ones who actually land roles aren’t networking randomly. They’ve identified specific teams, specific bankers they want to work for, and they’re intentional about it. But then I also hear that networking is supposed to feel natural, like you’re building real relationships, not completing a task.
I think what’s tripping me up is that I don’t know how to be strategic without sounding like a robot. If I target people at specific desks—say, the tech M&A team—am I being smart or creepy? And if I do have a system for tracking outreach, follow-ups, cadence, does that somehow cheapen the whole thing?
I’m curious: do you actually have a system for this, or do you wing it? And if you do have some structure, how do you keep it from feeling transactional when you’re actually talking to people?
you’re overthinking the authenticity thing. having a list doesn’t make you a robot; it makes you smart. bankers respect discipline. they all know you’re reaching out to multiple people—they’re not special. what they care about is whether you’re serious. a targeted list of 15-20 people at teams you actually want to work for beats random coffee with 30 people. just don’t be sloppy with personalization.
the “organic” networking thing is marketing language. real strategy is building relationships with people who can actually help you hit your goal. spreadsheet away. just don’t let it show—personalize every message, do your homework on each person, and people won’t feel like names in a list. they’ll feel like you actually wanted to talk to them.
tracking cadence and follow-ups isn’t creepy; it’s professionalism. most people DON’T do it, which is why they fall off. a banker reaching back out after 3 weeks with a thoughtful follow-up vs. disappearing forever—guess who gets remembered. systems aren’t transactional if they’re in service of genuine relationships.
so u can be strategic AND authentic? that just lifted a huge weight off. gonna start my list tonight.
Strategic targeting and authenticity are entirely compatible—in fact, they reinforce each other. The most effective networkers I’ve mentored maintain a structured target list organized by firm, desk, and seniority level. This clarity allows them to craft contextual messages that demonstrate genuine interest in specific teams. The system itself is invisible to the banker; what they experience is a well-researched, personalized outreach. I’d recommend categorizing your targets into primary (dream teams), secondary (aligned teams), and exploratory (adjacent opportunities). This tiering helps you allocate energy proportionally. Additionally, documenting your interactions—what you discussed, commitments made, appropriate follow-up timing—is not transactional; it’s respect for the relationship.
Regarding cadence, I’d suggest a 2-4 week follow-up window for initial conversations, with a 6-8 week cycle for deeper relationship development. Document not just names and dates, but substantive details: specific deals they mentioned, their background, shared interests. This intelligence becomes invaluable when you reconnect. The bankers who respond best to systematic outreach are those who sense genuine interest backed by effort—your spreadsheet investment signals you’re serious about understanding their desk, not just checking boxes.
Strategy plus heart equals success! Being organized shows you care, and bankers respect that. You’re going to build something real.
The creepy feeling goes away once you get your first few yeses. You realize these people are used to being approached—they’re not creeped out by respectful targeting. What actually weirds them out is low-effort, copy-paste messages that show zero research. So if you’re investing time in a real list with real information, you’re on the right track.
Data supports the targeting approach decisively. In our cohort, the conversion rate from outreach to coffee chats for those with a defined target list is approximately 35-40%, versus roughly 12-15% for random outreach. The difference compounds significantly in follow-up conversion rates. I’d recommend structuring your list by tier: Tier 1 consists of 10-15 people at your top desks whose work genuinely excites you; Tier 2 adds 15-20 adjacent opportunities. Track four metrics: outreach date, response rate, conversation quality, and follow-up outcomes. This creates a feedback loop that improves your messaging over time. Personalization depth matters—referencing a specific deal or recent move increases positive response rates by roughly 2-3x.
The spreadsheet concern is unfounded if approached strategically. Your documentation is input for better conversations, not a mechanism for treating people as transactions. In fact, detailed follow-up notes correlate with stronger relationship development because they enable continuity and demonstrate genuine engagement. The key is that your system remains invisible to the banker—they experience only personalization and thoughtfulness, both outputs of your organized approach.