GUEST COMMENT: The review process and the art of the mutual favour
The annual review process in an investment bank is not like that at a 'normal' company. At a normal company reviews might have a semblance of "transparency" and encourage "open, honest discussions." At a bank, reviews are all about politics.
For this reason, they are absolutely the worst time to express your honest feelings about everyone else you work with.
Ideally, you want a review which goes a little something like this:
"She is an excellent Associate who always takes time out of her busy schedule, not only to show me the in's and out's of accounting and finance, but also to impart valuable leadership skills. Her attention to detail is impeccable, and she adds so much value and attends to clients' needs so well that it seems they never have any needs. I give her my highest recommendation and cannot imagine a banker with whom I would rather work."
However, you are not going to achieve this kind of review if you do any of the following:
- Rat out associates, VPs, or MDs who don't pull their weight
- Rant about your accomplishments
- Ask for a raise
You may be tempted to be "honest" in upward reviews since it's easier to write something uncomfortable than to have an uncomfortable conversation. Don't be.
Equally, if you complain about co-worker problems on your review forms, it will backfire because you'll lose control over who knows about it.
Why investment banks have reviews
It's important not to mess up your review because it will indirectly influence two crucial things:
· Your bonus
· Your exit opportunities
Please note that your bonus isn't directly influenced by your review: it's more the result of roundtable discussions. In theory, reviews are more about assessing how you're doing, noting areas for improvement, and getting feedback on performance. In reality, they may be taken loosely into account.
Exit opportunities are important because most private equity funds and hedge funds only want to hire people who were identified as top performers.
How the review process works
In some cases, the review process is both upward and downward: you comment on senior bankers; senior bankers comment on you.
Usually, you get to select who reviews you, though you're limited by whom you've worked with in the past - even if your group head is in love with you, there's no point in listing him if you've never worked with him.
In upward reviews, you don't pick the bankers you review - they select the junior bankers who have worked closely with them.
Once your reviewers are set, they receive an online form where they answer questions like, "What do you think Analyst A has done well? Where could he/she use improvement? What projects have you worked on together
How to manage this
If and when you get to pick the bankers reviewing you, you pretty much have to pick those you've worked with extensively - defined as "at least 1 deal or several pitches."
If you know someone will be negative, you can exclude him/her as long as you have at least 3-4 other solid reviewers.
There's no point in getting an "honest mix of feedback" unless you have no other choice.
For upward reviews, do not say anything negative about anyone else.
Everything is either a 4 or 5 out of 5, and if you don't have anything nice to say, keep your comments brief and generic. Reviews are not about honesty, they are about watching your back and ensuring you're not laying the foundations for someone to slam you in future. Remember this and you will go far.
A version of this article first appeared on Mergers and Inquisitions a website dedicated to helping people break into investment banking, and to maintaining their sanity while doing so.
