Hi,
I left my previous fund about a year ago and have since joined a new firm. I originally left because I wasn’t being promoted to VP. It was mainly a matter of timing and budget constraints: a colleague, who was 2 years more experienced, had been promoted the year before to VP (where I was promoted to Senior Associate), which effectively meant there wasn’t room for another VP at the time my VP promotion came up. I was told I could stay for a few more months (probably up to a year), but ultimately I would need to leave. I really liked my time there and am interested in going back there (obviously I am a good leaver) for WLB and comp reasons.
I therefore recruited and eventually joined a new firm. Now, about a year later, my old fund has launched a new team with a new strategy that didn’t previously exist in my location (think of midcap vs largecap team). The team is completely independent from my old team and is currently hiring at the junior level, specifically Senior Associate. Interestingly, the new team is now interested in speaking with me about potentially coming back (I asked the partner if they‘re interested in speaking with me; so I made the reachout).
I’ll soon have a conversation with the Partner leading the team. However, I’ve already been told that their preference would be to hire people at Senior Associate level rather than VP. They‘re currently recruiting via headhunter in parallel to fill the position. My competitors are therefore senior associates.
This is where I’m trying to figure out how best to position myself. This fund historically hires very few external candidates above Analyst level. They strongly prefer people who join as Analysts and progress through the ranks internally (I joined there as a junior as well). At the same time, I don’t really want to go back as a Senior Associate without having some clarity on the path to VP.
One idea I was considering is proposing something along the lines of: “I’m happy to come back as a Senior Associate, but would it be possible to agree upfront that I would be promoted to VP after one year, assuming performance is in line with expectations?” A new Senior Associate joining the team would presumably also have only 1–2 years to make VP before they would face the same question about progression. I also have the advantage that they already know me, I know the organization and culture, and I presumably have basically no ramp-up period than an external Senior Associate. I know the processes, the portfolio, the IT, everything.
So I’m wondering how you would approach this conversation.Would you:
1. Push fairly directly for a VP title from day one?
2. Accept Senior Associate but negotiate/seek a clear commitment to VP after ~12 months? (Can you put this in a contract?)
3. Avoid discussing a promotion timeline explicitly and instead focus on getting the role first?
4. Take a different approach altogether?
I’m particularly interested in how others would frame this with the Partner so that it doesn’t come across as overly title-focused, but still protects me from simply ending up in the same situation again 12 months down the line.
