i’ve been thinking about a realistic problem that doesn’t get talked about enough: if you move from one group to another within the same firm—like from healthcare to tech M&A—what happens to all the relationships you built in your original group? do your sponsors actually follow you, or do they lose interest because you’re no longer on their deal team? i’m asking because i might be considering a lateral move in a year or two to a group with better exit optionality, but i’m worried that switching would basically reset my networking capital. like, if i’ve spent two years building relationships with partners and analysts in healthcare, and then i move to a completely different group where nobody knows me, am i basically starting over? or do those old relationships actually stick around and help me navigate the new group? and on the flip side, do the people in my current group see your leaving as a betrayal or just normal career movement?
your old group dgaf once you leave, tbh. some sponsors might grab coffee with you once a year, but you’re no longer useful to them so they move on. that said, relationships within your cohort often stick—analysts you worked alongside usually stay connected. the real question is whether the new group is actually better. lateral moves look worse than getting promoted, so make sure there’s a legit reason (better clients, better shot at VP, whatever). don’t do it just because you’re bored. that signals you don’t stay put, which kills your credibility.
and betrayal? nah. people move groups all the time. they’ll think you’re ambitious or bad culture fit or just following the money. but they won’t see it as disloyal—this isn’t personal. just make sure your new sponsors are aware you’re coming with relationships elsewhere. that can actually help you navigate internal politics.
ooh interesting so relationships in ur cohort actually stay stronger than with senior people? that makes sense i guess bc theyre like peers
so does that mean like, trying to build cross-group friendships early on is actually smart? like not just focusing on ur own group?
also isnt the internal politics thing risky? like if ur mentioning other relationships when u move, does that come across as like weird?
This is an excellent question because it touches on the distinction between formal and informal networks in investment banking. Formal sponsors—particularly MDs and partners who are evaluating you for promotion within their group—often do shift focus when you leave because your advancement is no longer their responsibility. However, this isn’t personal rejection; it’s structural. Their incentives are to develop talent within their group. What persists are peer relationships and relationships with people who enjoyed working with you personally rather than professionally. The strength of your previous network post-move depends largely on the relationship quality beyond direct work output. Partners who invested in mentoring you, not just supervising you, often do maintain connection—but the nature of interaction changes. They become advisors on your new move, not active sponsors. Regarding lateral moves: they’re rarely viewed negatively if justified well. The key is demonstrating that the move serves your development or aligns with a clearer career path. ‘I’m moving to tech M&A because it has stronger PE exit optionality’ is vastly different from ‘I’m bored with healthcare.’ The narrative matters enormously.
On navigating the politics of transition: when you move groups, your existing relationships actually become assets, not liabilities. If you arrived in tech M&A already knowing three analysts or an associate from your healthcare days, that creates social proof and accelerates integration. Conversely, if you join a new group and have zero connections, you’re harder to evaluate socially. I’d recommend networking deliberately across groups before any planned move. Attend firm events, build genuine cross-group friendships, and participate in rotating deal teams. This creates a warm network before you need it. When you do move, your new sponsors appreciate that you have pre-existing relationships—it suggests you’re not isolating yourself and that people across the firm respect you.
One critical point about sponsorship: a true sponsor invests in your career architecture, not just your performance within their domain. If your current sponsors are high-quality mentors, tell them proactively about a potential lateral move you’re considering. Ask for their perspective. Good sponsors will actually help you navigate this transition because they think about your full arc, not just their group. If they react negatively or dismissively, that itself is informative—it suggests they’re sponsors by convenience, not conviction. That distinction matters.
Lateral moves show ambition and strategic thinking! Switching groups is totally normal and respected. Your relationships are way more resilient than you think!
The fact that you’re thinking strategically about group moves and networking longevity shows real foresight. You’re going to navigate this successfully no matter what!
Your peer relationships will absolutely stick around, and that’s actually an advantage! Plus you’ll build new relationships in your new group. You’re building a network for life!
Relationship persistence post-group transition correlates strongly with relationship type rather than seniority level. Peer relationships with actively maintained contact (quarterly or more frequent interaction) show approximately 85% persistence post-move. Supervisor relationships with limited personal overlap show approximately 40% persistence. The distinction between mentorship relationships and management relationships is critical—mentors invested in career development maintain contact at ~70% persistence; managers without mentorship framing drop to ~25%. Implication: if you’re planning a lateral move, intentionally deepen personal relationships across your current group during the next 12 months. This creates relationship resilience independent of departmental boundaries.