The Paradox of People Management in High Finance: Balancing Autonomy, Efficiency, and Institutionalization
Thoughts & Insights from Ceaser Siwale
Having spent the past 27 years in financial markets—24 of them in investment banking—I have witnessed firsthand the paradox that exists within our industry. While we excel at navigating mergers, deciphering complex financial models, and trying to anticipate market trends, many of us struggle when it comes to managing people. Throughout my career, especially during periods of accelerated growth or industry downturns, managing teams has consistently been one of my greatest challenges.
The Appeal of Autonomy and Independence
One reason I’ve observed for this managerial disconnect is that high finance naturally attracts individuals who value autonomy and intellectual freedom. Personally, I have thrived in environments where I can exercise independent judgment, make swift decisions, and pursue ideas without being micromanaged.
“High finance people are notoriously poor at managing others—ironically, that’s precisely why many of us are drawn here. You don’t really have to manage extensively; if a person isn’t self-driven, they simply won’t last.”
This mindset highlights a fundamental truth about our industry: it’s built on self-motivation. However, it also reveals a vulnerability—when firms grow and require more structured management, many seasoned professionals (myself included) find ourselves struggling to adapt.
Institutionalization and the Rise of Administrative “Busy Work”
As financial institutions expand, they inevitably introduce layers of bureaucracy intended to streamline operations and ensure compliance. Ironically, this institutionalization often leads to inefficiencies through excessive administrative tasks that distract from our core financial activities.
“Today I’ve accomplished absolutely nothing meaningful. I’ve reviewed dashboards, provided development feedback, handled office admin tasks, entertained new joiners’ questions over lunch—none of which identified new deals or approached potential investors. This is the definition of busy work: constantly dealing with tasks that yield nothing substantial.”
These words resonate deeply with me because I’ve experienced similar frustrations countless times. The expansion of departments like HR, compliance and reporting lines frequently exacerbates this issue. These teams tend to balloon rapidly, creating additional layers of bureaucracy that inadvertently slow down our deal-making teams rather than supporting them.
“…all these departments have taken on lives of their own. They create work simply to justify their existence. We’re effectively paying people to slow down our deal teams under the guise of ‘institutionalization.’ It’s absurd.”
The Cost of Administrative Overload
The consequences of administrative overload are tangible: reduced productivity, diminished morale, and growing frustration among talented professionals who feel their skills are wasted on non-value-added activities. Reflecting on my earlier career experiences in investment banking (IB), I recall how intensely results-driven our environment was:
“I showed up for work at 7am even though the official time was 8:30am and i was the last leave. By 9 a.m., I was expected to have sent daily updates for multiple live deals and key clients—often five to eight updates each morning. This wasn’t even considered ‘work’. My boss was in the office every Saturday without fail and it was a unspoken rule that I needed to be.”
Such high-performance cultures contrast sharply with environments burdened by administrative overload today. This contrast highlights how institutional inefficiencies can undermine productivity and engagement.
Bridging the Gap: Developing Effective Leaders
Given these challenges, I’ve come to believe that financial institutions must invest significantly in leadership development programs tailored specifically for finance professionals. Such programs should emphasize essential managerial skills like effective communication, delegation strategies, conflict resolution techniques, and mentorship capabilities.
Throughout my 27-year career in financial markets, I’ve seen firsthand how mentorship can foster a sense of community and shared purpose among colleagues. Senior leaders sharing their experiences with junior staff can significantly ease the transition into leadership roles—something I wish I’d seen more consistently over my career.
Ultimately, financial institutions must find a balance between necessary institutional controls and preserving the agility that originally drove their success. While structure is essential for sustainability and compliance purposes, excessive bureaucracy risks alienating talented professionals who thrive on autonomy and impactful contributions.
I recall a colleague who humorously embodied this tension perfectly: he would regularly question the necessity of certain tasks—often calling them pointless—but when the moment demanded true focus, he would roll up his sleeves (literally), and deliver exceptional results. This taught me that finance professionals perform best when empowered to focus on meaningful tasks aligned with their core strengths rather than drowning in administrative distractions.
Reflecting on my 27 years in financial markets—24 years specifically immersed deeply in deal-making—I remain convinced that bridging this paradox between financial expertise and people management is essential for sustained success. I am also learning and trying to evolve. By investing thoughtfully in leadership development while carefully controlling administrative expansion, financial institutions can maintain efficiency without sacrificing necessary structure.
In my experience, success in high finance ultimately hinges on empowering talented individuals to do what they do best: creating value through meaningful work rather than getting lost in bureaucracy and managerial inefficiencies.
