Why Role-Fit & Resilience Matter More Than Grit in Investment Banking

Scott Galloway’s reflections on his time at Morgan Stanley expose a tension between traditional high-pressure corporate environments and personal fit. While investment banking is often glamorized as a crucible for ambitious talent, Galloway’s account underscores how such roles can exact emotional costs—particularly for individuals with sensitivity to criticism, intense competition, or a hierarchical, political work culture.

However, his criticisms are tempered by acknowledgment that the structure and rigor of a large institution offered formative benefits. The late-night proofing of regulatory documents, the pressure to perform ahead of peers he deemed more prepared—all pushed him mechanically, but also morally toward domains like entrepreneurship, where stakes are internalized, but autonomy and misalignment can be mitigated.

Strategically, Galloway’s experience suggests that for many entering finance, the optimal path may be one where early roles function as “boot camps”—not to confirm permanent commitment, but to clarify personal values around risk, culture, and role expectations. For firms, this raises questions about how to design junior tracks that balance performance demands with psychological safety and coaching. From the individual point of view, there is value in short stints or rotational experiences to test temperament against corporate realities.

Open questions following Galloway’s experience include: How might banking institutions adjust onboarding and management to better support diverse interpersonal styles? To what extent does this kind of early disillusionment affect long-term talent development—especially for those uncomfortable with traditional metrics or office politics? And finally, given the rise of remote, gig-economy, and founder roles, is the classic banking path still as viable or necessary for success for those who don’t ultimately want to stay?