It may have been 20 years ago but I remember vividly when Merrill Lynch interviewed me for a managing director role in equity capital markets back in 2005. I had done detailed preparation, researching the firm, market conditions, and my deal credentials inside out. But, it turned out, there wasn’t much point.
One interviewer invited me out for a drink and ordered two lager pints for himself, explaining, “That way, when I finish the first, I don’t have to wait for the second to come.”
Another spent the entire interview talking about himself and all the deals he had completed; my lasting memory is the odd way he pronounced the word institutional, and how he kept repeating it with theatrical emphasis.
Then there was the meeting where the interviewer simply asked, “What can I tell you about this crazy place?” and didn’t bother to ask a single question about my experience or what I had been doing, or why I wanted to move.
Investment banking recruitment is maddeningly inconsistent. Graduate programmes take a regimented approach to hiring. They follow predictable timelines and standardised steps — application forms, online tests, interviews, and assessment centres. These processes are designed to sift through thousands of candidates systematically.
Front office jobs in capital markets or M&A require both steak and sizzle — a mix of technical and interpersonal skills, EQ as well as IQ. Normal assessments struggle to capture those qualities
Once you move beyond entry level, however, the process becomes far less structured. For experienced roles, hiring is informal and erratic. Interviews might happen in pubs, in Mayfair club salons, or during impromptu meetings where neither side is properly briefed. The randomness is real because, in many ways, the process is genuinely ad hoc. Yet this informality persists and arguably increases as more senior people are approached for the same gig.
There are good reasons for this. Front office jobs in capital markets or M&A require both steak and sizzle — a mix of technical and interpersonal skills, EQ as well as IQ. Normal assessments struggle to capture those qualities.
A CV can list deals closed or revenue generated, but it won’t reveal how someone thinks under pressure or holds the attention of a boardroom. That’s why interviews often turn into unstructured conversations where senior bankers gauge temperament and cultural fit over coffee or drinks.
Hiring needs can also arise suddenly. A team loses a bevy of seniors, leaving little time for HR to run a formal recruitment process. Urgency trumps everything, and quick decisions force the hiring managers to rely on networks and knee-jerk judgement.
Despite its flaws, informality has benefits. You can learn about someone in a casual conversation, as opposed to a formal interview. A couple of drinks, and sometimes the shutters come down and you see the real person.
Still, this approach has its downsides. It favours those with strong connections and makes hirers risk-averse. On its own, it can undermine the attempts to diversify the composition of teams. Talented candidates who lack rizz — and so don’t excel in spontaneous social settings — risk being overlooked, even if they would do well in the job. It just favours the bullshitter.
At the most senior levels, recruitment becomes even more opaque. Hiring managing directors or partners is rarely about ticking boxes. It’s about revenue potential, client relationships, perceived stature, and cultural fit.
Decisions often emerge from backchannel conversations, with senior figures vouching for candidates they know or have competed against. At that level, firms want rainmakers whose reputations precede them.
But even elite hiring could benefit from more rigour. Leaning on gut instinct and personal allegiance can lead to costly misfires, mis-hires, and missed hires. There’s a real risk of hiring in haste, and repenting at leisure. Combining informal assessments with structured evaluations of track record and cultural impact would mitigate these risks.
Improving front office hiring without stifling its flexibility requires a nuanced, hybrid approach. Firms can keep informal elements but introduce consistent evaluation criteria. A framework to assess traits like resilience, creativity, client focus, and cultural chemistry could help interviewers avoid relying entirely on intuition.
Standardising feedback would help too. Even if an interview is an informal chat, documenting impressions prevents decisions based on hazy recollections.
Technology, such as video interviews or data-driven assessments, could be deployed to temper randomness with some semblance of objectivity.
Banking recruitment is unstructured because the job itself is fast-paced and relationship-driven. But there’s a difference between intentional informality and pell mell disorganisation.
To be sure, not every hire needs a rigid process, but there are no short cuts to good recruitment.