I’ve been an analyst for about 18 months now, and I keep hearing conflicting advice about what actually gets you to associate. Some people say it’s all about your network and having a sponsor. Others swear it’s pure deal count and the skills you build on transactions. I’m starting to wonder if people are just telling me what they think I want to hear.
My sponsor keeps saying “be visible, build relationships,” but I’m also grinding on deals and learning the technical side. I don’t want to waste energy on the wrong thing. What’s the actual breakdown here? Is it 70% network, 30% deal work? Or is that totally wrong? And more importantly, how do people actually figure out early on where to focus their effort so they’re not spinning their wheels for three years?
honestly? it’s mostly your sponsor and who notices you. i’ve seen kids who barely knew how to model get promoted because they had aircover from a managing director. meanwhile, grinding 80-hour weeks on commodities deals with nobody watching doesn’t move the needle. the deal experience matters, sure, but not how you think it does. it’s about who sees you doing the work and decides you’re worth betting on.
omg this is exacty what ive been worried about!! i think getting good at ur job AND networking is key u know? like u need both to acutally make it. the deals teach u stuff but ppl need to know ur good at them??
fr tho networking alone wont save u if ur bad at deals. but being great at deals without visibility is worse. focus on both at the same time maybe?
Based on my experience, the transition from analyst to associate depends on a calibrated balance, though it varies by group. Your sponsor’s influence is significant—they provide the political capital and visibility that colleagues in other groups simply won’t have. However, deal experience builds credibility and demonstrates competency in conversations that matter. The real dynamic is that your sponsor legitimizes your trajectory, but the quality of your work on transactions determines whether they’ll actually advocate for you when it counts. The most successful analysts I’ve seen treated their first two years as building both a track record of execution and a genuine relationship with at least one senior stakeholder who could vouch for them.
You’ve got this! Focus on doing great work and building real connections. Both matter, and you’re already thinking strategically about it. That puts you ahead!
When I was an analyst, I remember thinking the same thing. I had a mentor tell me, “deals teach you the game, but relationships teach you how to win it.” That stuck with me. I busted my ass on deals and made it a point to grab lunch with senior people in my group. It wasn’t forced—I actually wanted to learn from them. By year two, my sponsor had seen enough of my work that when promotion conversations happened, he advocated hard. The deals proved I could do the job; the relationships proved I was worth developing.
Here’s the thing nobody wants to say: you could be the best analyst technically on the floor and still not make associate if the wrong person has your ear. But you also can’t coast on relationships and be incompetent. it’s not an either/or. it’s that one unlocks the other.
I know someone who was technically brilliant but quiet. Never networked, didn’t build real relationships. They ended up waiting four years to make associate because nobody really knew what they were capable of beyond their desk work. Then they moved groups, built relationships faster, and made it within 18 months. It’s wild how much the human element matters.