A systems-engineer-turned-therapist’s view from Modern Therapy Alliance

Why Scott Galloway’s Critique Is Landing

If you follow conversations about work, capitalism, masculinity, or leadership, you’ve almost certainly encountered Scott Galloway. His recent commentary on therapy and mental health has gained traction because it speaks to something many professionals already feel but rarely hear named directly.

Looking at Therapy as a System, Not a Belief

I understand why his ideas resonate. Before becoming a therapist, I spent 25 years in corporate America, earning a master’s degree in systems engineering and an MBA. I’ve always looked at therapy the same way I looked at organizations and institutions: as systems shaped by incentives, constraints, and outcomes. From that perspective, mental health shouldn’t be exempt from evaluation. If something isn’t working, we should be willing to say so.

Questioning Whether Therapy Is Actually Working

Scott Galloway is doing exactly that. He’s questioning whether therapy, as it’s commonly practiced and marketed, is actually helping—especially for men. That critique deserves to be engaged seriously, not dismissed.

Why Scott Galloway Is Resonating Right Now

Scott doesn’t speak in therapeutic language. He doesn’t talk about healing journeys or self-actualization. He talks about incentives, systems, and results. That framing resonates with people who feel alienated by therapy culture as it currently exists. It resonates with many executives and senior leaders we work with at Modern Therapy Alliance.

When Meaning Becomes Individualized and Abstract

His core argument is structural. People aren’t struggling because they’re weak. They’re struggling because the systems that once shaped identity—work, mentorship, shared responsibility, and community—have eroded. Loneliness has increased. Economic pressure has intensified. Meaning has become abstract and individualized.

In that context, therapy that emphasizes emotional articulation for its own sake can feel hollow. Endless introspection doesn’t solve the problem Scott is naming: how people function, lead, and build meaningful lives in demanding environments. Scott’s popularity comes from the fact that he’s naming a real problem. Where the debate begins is what he believes should replace what was lost.

Scott Galloway’s Critique of Therapy, in Brief

In his recent writing and interviews, Scott argues that therapy is often oversold as a universal solution. For some people—particularly men—therapy can reinforce rumination rather than reduce it. When sessions center on emotional analysis without movement toward action, they risk increasing self-focus instead of restoring direction.

He’s also critical of therapy’s cultural positioning. In his view, therapy often prioritizes emotional expression over agency, reflection over contribution, and insight over outcomes. As a result, it can feel misaligned with how many men understand growth and effectiveness.

Importantly, Scott does not reject therapy outright. He acknowledges that it can be useful when it’s practical and goal-oriented. His concern is effectiveness, not mental health itself. At its core, his critique is not anti-therapy. It’s anti-ineffectiveness.

Where Scott Galloway Is Right

Scott is right that therapy, as many men experience it, hasn’t been particularly effective. That’s uncomfortable for the therapy world to admit, but it matters. Men are struggling, and many therapeutic frameworks fail to engage them in ways that feel relevant or useful.

When Insight Doesn’t Translate Into Change

He’s also right to push back against therapy for therapy’s sake. Insight that never translates into change stops being helpful. Effective therapy—like effective leadership development—should be oriented toward outcomes: clearer direction, stronger self-regulation, and real-world engagement.

What Was Lost When Institutions Disappeared

Scott is also right to point out that many of the institutions that once helped build resilience and capability are gone or dying. Many were flawed. Some were exclusionary. But many were effective at producing psychologically sturdy people—often without ever naming that as their goal. Their removal has had consequences, particularly for men who no longer have clear pathways to develop internal strength through lived experience.

His diagnosis of the problem is sharp. His frustration makes sense.

Where Scott’s Framework Starts to Strain

Where Scott’s analysis begins to strain is not in what he sees, but in how narrowly he defines what should replace what was lost.

When Economic Viability Becomes Identity

In a recent interview with Katie Couric, Scott defended the idea that men need to be “economically viable” to succeed, particularly in relationships. He’s not wrong. In a capitalist society, economic viability matters.

But he never fully defines what economically viable means—or who gets to decide. Professional success is one axis of identity, but it is not the only one. When it becomes the dominant or exclusive measure of worth, it quietly narrows how people understand themselves and others.

A Longstanding Tension Between Worth and Production

This isn’t a moral critique. It’s a systems observation.

More than a century ago, Charlotte Perkins Gilman challenged capitalism for defining human value almost exclusively through production. Her argument wasn’t anti-work. It was a warning about what gets lost when caregiving, teaching, and relational labor are treated as secondary forms of contribution.

Scott’s critique of men, meaning, and therapy lives inside that same unresolved tension. He’s right about the breakdown. He’s simply narrower than he realizes about the range of viable human solutions.

Why Scott May Be Closer to the Solution Than He Realizes

This is where I feel more aligned with Scott than opposed to him.

When Success Stops Explaining Meaning

It is entirely natural for someone at his stage of life and career to be questioning identity. We see this regularly with executives and high-performing professionals. After decades of achievement—titles earned, money made, reputations built—many people reach a point where success no longer answers the deeper questions.

That moment can feel disorienting, even threatening, especially when professional identity has been the primary organizing force of life. It’s also where resentment can creep in—toward culture, institutions, and therapy itself—particularly if therapy never helped articulate or integrate this tension.

From our perspective, Scott isn’t rejecting growth. He’s reacting to therapy that never addressed the real issue: not feelings in isolation, but identity under pressure.

Execution, Identity, and What Therapy Is Actually For

Scott is right about something every executive understands instinctively: execution matters more than ideas.

The same is true in therapy.

Most high-functioning people don’t lack insight. They already know what resilience is, what values sound like, and what success looks like on paper. What’s harder is executing on those values when stress, habit, and identity collide. That’s where good therapy actually operates—not in endless rumination, but in practice, application, and challenge.

When Identity Becomes Unavoidable

This is where identity becomes unavoidable.

For many executives, especially those who’ve achieved real success, the idea that therapy might be about identity can feel strange or unnecessary. But in practice, this is often exactly when those questions surface. Professional success carried them far, but it no longer explains meaning.

Good therapy doesn’t tear success down. It helps people understand it.

What Comes After Success

It helps clarify the hows and whys of achievement, expand identity beyond a single domain, and integrate values, relationships, and purpose in a way that actually feels sustainable. Success by itself isn’t happiness. Happiness comes from success that is understood, meaningful, and aligned with a broader sense of identity.

That’s why therapy, done well, isn’t beneath success. It’s often what comes after it.

An Invitation, Not an Indictment

And for executives who recognize themselves somewhere in Scott Galloway’s framing, this conversation isn’t an indictment. It’s an invitation—to think more deeply about identity, meaning, and what actually makes a life feel whole.

If nothing else, it’s a conversation worth having.