- Scott Galloway describes hating his two years in fixed income at Morgan Stanley but credits the job with instilling discipline, attention to detail, and market literacy.
- The experience exposed his insecurity, emotional volatility, and discomfort in large hierarchies, convincing him he lacked the temperament for big corporations.
- He reframed entrepreneurship as a defense mechanism and better fit, favoring roles with clear ownership, accountability, and room for storytelling.
- He argues early “boot camp” jobs at elite firms can be valuable stepping stones, helping people both build credibility and learn what they are not suited for.
Read More
Scott Galloway’s narrative about his early investment banking role provides a compelling case study in how formative but misaligned early career experiences can shape longer-term identity, strategy, and leadership. While he states unequivocally that he “hated” the job, his time at Morgan Stanley served as a critical proving ground: acclimating to high pressure, learning the mechanics of professional rigor (including “attention to detail”), and clarifying personal weaknesses—especially the discomfort with large hierarchical structures and interpersonal dynamics common in big firms [1].
These elements not only fed his distaste for that type of work but informed his later decisions to build ventures and roles more aligned with his strengths: storytelling, ownership, and relative autonomy. Galloway’s admission that he was “too insecure,” that senior management upset him if they seemed equally or more intelligent, and that he lacked patience or organizational fit underscores how character and temperament are as relevant as technical ability in career compatibility. [1]
Strategically, his journey suggests three lessons. First, early career choices—even if temporary or uncomfortable—can be leveraged as learning platforms: skills like discipline, market knowledge, and professional norms accumulate capital even in roles you leave. Second, the process of recognizing what you are not good at (versus what you feel passionate about) is key to refocusing your trajectory; Galloway uses entrepreneurship as a “defense mechanism” after realizing corporate life didn’t suit him. [1][2]
Third, environment matters: high IQ peers, rigorous expectations, high visibility, and room for ownership shaped his preference for roles where he could see immediate feedback and alignment between effort and reward. This translates into his later success advising or investing in startups, media, and education, where control and voice are more accessible than in large institutions.
Open questions remain: how common is Galloway’s path among current grads facing different economic pressures? To what extent do institutions recognize and accommodate diverse temperaments, especially those less comfortable in corporate structures? And for advisors: when is it worth staying in misaligned “training” roles versus pivoting early?
Supporting Notes
- Galloway worked in fixed income at Morgan Stanley for two years after college despite having no idea what investment banking entailed going in. [1]
- He says, “I hated it; they hated me; I was terrible at it.” [1]
- He indicates he realized, “I don’t have the skills to be in a big company,” citing insecurity and discomfort in hierarchical settings. [1]
- Galloway says big organizations exposed his emotional volatility: feeling that when over three people gathered, they were talking about him; resenting senior people for making more money even if they were not smarter. [1]
- He calls entrepreneurship a “defense mechanism” after discovering what he wasn’t suited for. [1]
- Galloway argues early jobs in well-resourced, high-expectation environments—though imperfect—function as a “boot camp” that provide critical training: details, work ethic, exposure to markets. [2][3]
Sources
- [1] lilys.ai (Lilys.ai) — 2025-?
- [2] www.jordanharbinger.com (Jordan Harbinger) — 2024-?
- [3] thegouldstandard.com (The Gould Standard) — 2017-12-14