These 3 cannot exist in unison.
Why do Managing Directors so often demand immediate turnaround with little apparent consideration for how long the work actually takes to do correctly, then criticize the team when rushed work contains errors, but also criticize the team when higher-quality work takes longer?
Is this primarily a structural issue in finance, where client responsiveness is valued above realistic execution planning? Or is there a genuine disconnect between senior-level expectations and the actual work required at the analyst and associate level?
The part I struggle with is that junior teams often end up absorbing the cost of unrealistic commitments. If an MD overpromises to a client or senior leadership, the team is expected to work unreasonable hours to protect that commitment. But by doing so, aren't we just reinforcing the behavior? Every time the team “saves” the deadline, the MD receives the signal that the deadline was achievable.
Why do finance organizations continue to expect analysts and associates to absorb the consequences of unrealistic timelines instead of allowing MDs to own the consequences of overpromising? If senior people had to explain missed deadlines more often, maybe they would eventually develop the balls and backbone (unlikely, they are MDs after all) to push back on clients and internal stakeholders, articulate realistic timelines, and stop treating every request as an unavoidable fire drill.
Or is the system too dependent on junior-level overextension for that to ever happen?
You can choose to move faster than information moves, but don't expect the information to move with you if you do, or for the information that does move with you to be of any quality or worth anything.
Edit:
Things that make sense so far are
-there is always a fresh crop of juniors willing to eat sh!t for the resume
-an MD hoping to make a name for himself will do this as an unintentional side effect of trying to overprovide what they perceive to be a high level of service
What is the benefit to the MD of allowing for longer timelines?
Quality of work increases, number of errors and re-drafts decrease, clients don't see timelines being blown up or missed as often therefore preventing dilution of believablilty of the MD's promises, quality of life increases for all involved
Yes I agree with this
I think the issue is that there is always a fresh crop of juniors willing to eat sh!t for the resume lol
Trademark of an MD struggling for business. Book size / timing constraints are often inversely correlated to how well regarded the MD is and how strong his/her deal pipeline is.
This actually makes sense, so an MD hoping to make a name for himself will do this as an unintentional side effect of trying to provide value vs. the ones who are well regarded truly have the ability to operate things "their way"
Facts. My MD (~$50M fees originated annually) says his favorite valuation method is to hop on CIQ and look up [common comp]’s EBITDA multiple and add or subtract a few turns based on quality of the target. Can tell you for a fact he is never proactively spinning up a football field…
Haha this is hilarious, never tell a client this
Repellat sed possimus dignissimos velit. Quidem dolor impedit reiciendis incidunt asperiores aut ab. Similique aspernatur nemo omnis odio. Dolores molestias et ipsa fugit.
Iste veniam suscipit dolores ut aut sed. Voluptatem repellat facilis aliquid nobis omnis.
Ut magni magni atque alias blanditiis. Sed velit dolores qui repellendus aperiam. Aut sunt illum nesciunt placeat quia autem.
Alias ipsum et illo exercitationem cumque qui. Dolores laboriosam possimus omnis ullam voluptatum deleniti in. Et error aliquam assumenda voluptas saepe iusto.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...