• Going into business with someone can be exciting. It can also be highly risky.
• A therapist who coaches co-founders shared red flags to look out for before going into business.
• His best advice? Talk out all the specifics before you sign — and work on a trial project first.

It's hard to beat the rush of brainstorming a genius business idea: the electric back-and-forth over cocktails, the daydreams of a sleek future office, the possibility of making millions.

It's even harder to imagine — and live through — a co-founder breakup. Dr. Matthew Jones, a startup executive psychologist who coaches co-founders, told Business Insider that heavy conflict between business leaders presents "an existential threat to the very existence of the company."

If you and your co-founder can't get along to the point of active contention, you might become involved in lawsuits over control of the company. In worst-case scenarios, the business shuts down completely.

"That's the biggest net loss: everybody goes home, all the employees are fired, the investors lose money," Jones said. "Those are situations I really work hard with teams to try to avoid."

One of the best ways to dodge years of financial and emotional pain is to choose the right business partner from the very beginning. "It's important to know your own psychology," Jones said, such as which values matter to you. There are also a few communication mistakes that universally impact all business leaders, he said, like not going over specific details before you commit.

Much like a marriage, you can't predict how high pressure will impact and change you both. But there are red flags you can look out for prior to legally binding yourselves together.

They don't want your relationship to change

Research shows that there are cons to running a business with a best friend, spouse, or family member, Jones said. The people who do it successfully are the ones who have their "eyes wide open," he said, "recognizing that it will fundamentally change some aspect of that relationship."

If you prioritize business growth, you might have to give very direct professional feedback at some point that could hurt the other co-founder on a personal level. If you can't picture yourself saying that to your childhood friend or younger sibling, that's a sign to reconsider entering a business relationship together.

Avoiding the possibility of change can cause more pain down the road. When parting ways, some of Jones' clients have found it "excruciating" to grieve the loss of a business relationship and a deep friendship at the same time.

They're ego-driven

Going into business with someone who is ego-driven — concerned with status or needing a lot of praise — isn't necessarily a dealbreaker, Jones said.

It can get problematic when the relationship feels one-sided and there isn't a natural give-and-take. If you already notice that the other person can't bend a little or meet you halfway, it will only get worse.

Jones said this is especially worrying if you're a people pleaser. "You might easily default to that role and then later find it incredibly restrictive," he said.

In his experience, co-founders may appear to be very similar in the beginning, during the honeymoon phase of starting a company. But later, one person, usually the one trying to preserve the peace, may start to take issue with the power dynamics at play. The fallout when they start speaking up more can get nasty, particularly if the other person has narcissistic traits.

They can't handle feedback

Every thriving business relies on regular feedback, especially the negative kind.

"If you notice a lot of defensiveness, especially early in the relationship, that's a big red flag," Jones said. "That will get worse under pressure."

To grow, you need to level with each other when the other person doesn't meet expectations. If the other person can't take it, it means they can't grow. That's a death knell for a budding business.

"That relationship actually has to scale," Jones said. "It has to change, not just once."

They skip over specifics

Jones said mismatches in contribution are a common source of conflict. Oftentimes, the issue has more to do with communication than work ethic.

He gave one example he sees often in founding teams: in the excitement of the early stages, one person makes grandiose promises. They say they have a fantastic network that will make fundraising a breeze. What they won't mention is that they don't plan to actually lead fundraising beyond making introductions. Cue: conflict.

You can avoid these issues by getting "granular and specific about those contributions," he said. This is especially important when it comes to factors like work-life balance. You need to be candid about how much of your life you plan to commit to the business. If one person is all in on the business and the other wants to be out by 5 p.m. to see their family, that disconnect spells trouble down the line if you've never talked about it.

These conversations also give you an opportunity to spot a subtler red flag, Jones said, which is a lack of curiosity about you. If they only want to see a flatter, business-only version of you, the relationship might get complicated when your life does, like if you get sick or have to care for a family member.

You haven't done a trial run yet

You might have a wonderful relationship with your hopefully-future partner. They text on time and seem even-keeled.

Still, running a business is a different kind of pressure, one that can bring out communication lapses and wildly different reactions to stress. That's why Jones strongly recommends doing a trial project together — something that ideally takes a few months or even a quarter, where you need to be "explicit about negotiating roles and responsibilities."

It won't perfectly replicate the emotional rollercoaster of heading a startup together, he said. "But being able to go through ups and downs with someone will reveal more about their deeper character than superficial pleasantries."

Twenty years ago, getting jobs in private equity was an ultra-niche choice for MBA grads at the prestigious Wharton School.

According to the school's career report for 2004, just over 4% of MBA students in that year's graduating class were headed for jobs in private equity and venture capital. By contrast, more than 23% had landed investment banking and brokerage jobs.

Today, it's a different story: Just over 15% of the 2024 class went to work at investment banks, while close to 13% took jobs with firms that invest in privately held companies.

To some extent, this isn't a surprise as businesses once viewed as the Wild West of finance catch up to long-standing bank behemoths in market share, power, and prestige. Blackstone has gone from managing about $32 million in assets two decades ago to more than $1 trillion today. Citadel's market-making arm now handles one in every four trades on the stock market.

As part of Business Insider's series on career paths in finance, we set out to learn how these transformations are shaping career aspirations and trajectories. Do the old strongholds of prestige still remain in the eyes of Gen Z? Or have opinions — and options — changed?

We surveyed undergraduate finance students and members of campus finance clubs — stepping stones to Wall Street internships — about their career tracks, expectations, and motivations. In addition to the 150 survey responses we received across about a dozen schools (which is not a scientifically representative sample), we interviewed about 30 students from schools such as the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, and New York University. They asked to be anonymous to protect their future careers.

A lot has changed, and at the same time, nothing really has. In our survey, names like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan stuck out in popularity — but so did Centerview Partners, a boutique M&A shop, and Blackstone, the trillion-dollar alternative asset manager.

"I think the sentiment definitely is shifting," a Columbia University junior said. "The interest is more varied in terms of the old path of just, 'I want to go to a big bank.'"

When asked which financial firm or other employer they'd most like to work for, nearly an even number of respondants mentioned investment banks (59) and buy-side firms, a category that covers private equity firms and hedge funds (57). A good chunk of people — 28 — were unsure or unspecific about a dream firm. (These numbers don't add up to the 150 total respondents because not everyone answered this question, some answers were not applicable, and others mentioned multiple firms in their write-in answer.)

Across both banking and the buy side (so named because these firms tend to buy assets instead of selling products and services), a preference for brand names and large firms stood out.

Thirty-five responses mentioned the top 10 investment banks by assets, including JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs. Some of the reasons given included "reputation," "talented people to learn from," "prestige," and the ability to get an even better job down the road (known in the industry, and on the survey, as "exit opportunities").

Goldman Sachs was the most mentioned firm in the survey responses, with 14 write-in responses, followed by JPMorgan (12) as a close second.

Thirty-one responses mentioned the top 10 private equity firms by assets, including KKR, Blackstone, and Apollo. Another four mentioned the top 10 hedge funds by assets, including Citadel and Bridgewater. Reasons given included "higher pay and good preparation to one day start my own firm," "working on the biggest deals in the world," and "the ideal blend of prestige and work-life balance."

Of those, Blackstone, the world's largest alternative assets manager, was the standout for most votes (11).

One Columbia junior said he accepted an internship at a large bank because he's unsure which area of finance he wants to pursue long term.

"In the same firm, they are doing so many different things. They're engaging with these companies, and through multiple different touch points instead of doing just advisory," he said of his choice to work for one of the largest and most established banks, a category known as bulge bracket.

The Wharton student agreed.

"I don't know what I want to do. But I know I want to be in the finance industry," he said. "I want to learn as much as I possibly can. So if I were to design a perfect job right out of college, it honestly would be a bulge bracket investment banking job."

Our survey results and interviews found that smaller firms, including so-called boutique banks, were strong contenders. The Columbia junior, for example, described being torn between the bulge-bracket offer he accepted and an offer from a boutique bank.

When seeking advice about which one to choose, he noticed a generational divide.

"Almost all the young people I talked to, let's say ages 32 and below, said go to the boutique," he told BI about his experience. "Everyone 32 and above said go to the bulge bracket."

When asked which finance firm or other employer they would most like to work for and why, 26 respondents mentioned non-bulge-bracket banks, including the boutique firms Centerview, Evercore, and Perella Weinberg.

Centerview, which advised Paramount on its $28 billion merger with Skydance in 2024, is known for being one of the highest payers for junior analysts on the street. It was the fourth-most-written-in response, with nine students saying they aspired to work there.

Boutique banks tend to focus on specific business lines or even industries, like entertainment or tech. These firms have developed a reputation for giving young bankers more hands-on deal experience, better work-life balance, and, in some cases, better pay.

The Columbia junior, for example, highlighted what he saw as a greater opportunity to stand out at a smaller firm. "You're not going to be a cog in a wheel simply because the denominator is smaller, you are now more important, you get to do more."

Another Columbia student, a sophomore, said boutique banks were the new mark of prestige among some of his classmates, while describing bulge brackets as the "baseline."

"It's like, OK, Columbia has been a target school for bulge brackets for however long, but the new name brands on the street are different now. It's Centerview, it's Moelis, and it's Evercore," he said.

The smaller-is-better crowd was also visible on the buy side. Twenty-nine responses mentioned firms that are smaller than the top 10 private equity firms or hedge funds by assets, including buy-side shops like Warburg Pincus, Silver Point Capital, and Hellman & Friedman. The reasons given included "excellent culture," "meaningful work," and "better work-life balance."

Students were also asked to share their dream finance jobs — not the one they expect to have upon graduation, but the one they want down the road. Buy-side jobs were the most popular: Eighty-five answers (equivalent to about 57% of respondents) mentioned private equity, hedge funds, or venture capital in some way.

The recruiting process for these some of these jobs can get pretty intense. According to the students BI spoke with, the benefits include more interesting work and slightly less grueling hours.

Autonomy and leadership also featured prominently among the survey responses, with 29 writing about entrepreneurship, running their own business, or holding a C-suite position.

These write-in answers included aspirations like being an "entrepreneur," "starting my own business," "running my own investment firm," and becoming a "CFO of a Fortune 500 company" or "CIO of a hedge fund."

Many of these answers overlapped with buy-side aspirations — like the students who said their dream was to "own my own hedge fund," or "run my own small PE firm."

Notably, just 15 answers about long-term dream jobs in finance mentioned banking.

About a dozen responses reflected uncertainty or long-term ambitions elsewhere, like in corporate law. A handful of those answers also expressed some of the values Gen Z is widely known for, saying they wanted to have a job that allowed them to "take time off while maintaining a life/raising a family," "be happy with where I work everyday," and "use finance for social good."

(Again, these numbers don't add up to the 150 total respondents because not everyone answered this question, some answers were not applicable, and others mentioned multiple dream jobs in their write-in answer.)

The Columbia junior doesn't know what he wants to do long term within finance, but he summed up his dream job this way:

"I just think dealing with the most complex problems, in whatever respective space you're in, is the ideal job for me," he said. "That's what gets me excited."

Want to share your career path with us? Fill out this quick form.

• Being a partner at Big Four firms is becoming less lucrative and harder to achieve.
• As economic headwinds hit the industry, firms are cutting partners, and payouts are dwindling.
• Big Four partnership is "a club that you can't get into anymore," one former PwC partner told BI.

Making partner at a Big Four firm has long been the consulting industry's golden ticket to prestige and big paydays, but amid economic headwinds and slowing demand, it's not what it once was.

In their 2024 financial years, total revenue growth at all four of the world's leading professional services firms — EY, Deloitte, PwC, and KPMG — dropped.

The slowdown hasn't just been bad for the books. It's created a problem in the partner ranks at the Big Four.

Partners are the most senior employees at the firms and are responsible for networking with clients and bringing in business. Those with equity status get a share of annual profits, meaning that as margins have tightened, partners' annual payouts have declined.

The total number of partners at three of the major firms' UK branches has also dropped, according to a Business Insider analysis of publicly available data.

In 2024, 124 partners left PwC, more than in the previous two years combined. EY's partner total dropped by 43 in 2024, while KPMG marked at least its third consecutive year of declines in partner numbers.

Deloitte UK increased its total partner numbers by 6 in 2024, but that was a slowdown compared to the previous two years, when the firm added a total of 69 partners.

Paul Webster, a former EY employee now a managing partner at the senior talent recruitment firm, Page Executive, told BI the departures mark a significant change in the partnership model compared to 10 or 20 years ago.

"It was basically once you got to partner, you had a job for life. It was very rare that partners would get laid off," Webster said.

Alan Paton, who until recently was a partner in PwC's financial services division, told BI that partners are being encouraged to retire amid the tight market conditions.

"Either partners get paid less, or there are less partners. Typically, partners don't want to get paid less," he said.

Paton, now CEO of Qodea, a consultancy specializing in Google Cloud solutions, believes that the pressure to retire will continue to increase, and this pattern will become the norm over the next three years. Partnership at the Big Four has become "a club that you can't get into anymore," he said.

The rise of non-equity partners

As more partners retire, fewer are filling the ranks to replace them. Instead, the next generation of senior professionals is being held back in the role of non-equity partner, meaning they receive a salary rather than profit-sharing status.

James O'Dowd, founder of the global executive recruiter Patrick Morgan, which specializes in senior partner hiring and industry analysis, told Business Insider that non-equity partner roles have become more prevalent over recent years and have picked up as the market slowed down. EY has had non-equity partners for over a decade, while the role has existed at KPMG since 2021.

"From the partners' perspective, if they continue to admit more equity partners, that dilutes the profit pool, and therefore, they make less money," said O'Dowd. Instead, firms are using the non-equity title as "a stopgap" that allows them to give out the partner title but not share the profits per the traditional partnership model, he said.

There's a lot of frustration among non-equity partners as they see their path to partnership get further away, O'Dowd added. Whereas 20 years ago, Big Four employees could make equity partner by around 35 years old, now they're probably looking at their early forties, he said.

PwC, which does not have a non-equity partner status, has introduced a "managing director" grade, which comes into effect on July 1 this year.

O'Dowd said the role would ease the pressure on "what was a very burgeoning director grade where they couldn't afford to make them an equity partner," said O'Dowd.

A PwC spokesperson told BI that the new role reflects the firm's commitment to adapting to the evolving business landscape.

"Our new MD grade offers our senior, high-performing staff an alternative to partnership. The role will help us provide more diverse career opportunities, ensuring we attract and retain the very best talent."

Younger professionals are less motivated to make partner

The shake-ups to the partnership model are changing how junior employees view the executive role, Wesbter and O'Dowd told BI.

O'Dowd said that the prestige of being a partner in a major firm isn't what it was 10 years ago.

Younger professionals are less motivated by the title and more interested in meritocratic compensation models, O'Dowd said.

"The problem with the partnership is that it's not inherently meritocratic. The profits are distributed often based on tenure and perceived contribution. What you're seeing now in the market are lots of alternatives to the bigger firms that pay a wage that's much more closely correlated to performance," he said.

Webster added that there are also concerns about the partnership model's risk-sharing nature after a series of major auditing scandals and subsequent regulatory fines.

Webster said his sister, a PwC partner in Australia, has seen her bonus get "absolutely crushed" in the fallout from the firm's 2024 tax scandal involving work with the Australian government.

But Paton, the former PwC partner, disagreed with the notion that juniors aren't looking to become partners.

Paton told BI that it is still "super aspirational" to be a partner at a Big Four firm and is viewed as a "tremendously prestigious job to have."

However, he acknowledged that, while aspirational, the role is no longer as achievable. Partner status is likely to be changed further by the impact of AI on professional services, he added.

"I think people realize that, even if that's something they aspire to, it may be something that won't actually exist in the future."

EY declined to comment when contacted by BI. KPMG and Deloitte did not respond to requests for comment.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at [email protected] or Signal at Polly_Thompson.89. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.