The Third Epoch: How Business Schools Can Navigate the AI Transformation

Listen to this article:

Abstract: Business schools face unprecedented disruption as generative artificial intelligence fundamentally challenges the value proposition that has sustained undergraduate and graduate business education for decades. This article examines how AI technologies are simultaneously eroding traditional sources of educational value—knowledge transfer, credential signaling, and relationship building—while creating new imperatives for business education at all levels. Drawing on strategic management theory, organizational learning research, and emerging empirical evidence on AI's impact on business tasks, we analyze the structural barriers preventing business schools from adapting their programs and propose evidence-based pathways for reinvention. The analysis reveals that incremental curricular adjustments are insufficient; business schools must fundamentally reimagine their value architecture around capabilities AI cannot replicate: causal reasoning, contextual judgment, ethical navigation, and relationship building in high-stakes environments. The article concludes that business schools' response to AI will determine whether they remain central to professional preparation or become peripheral to an increasingly AI-augmented business landscape.

Business schools are confronting an existential question: What is the value of business education when artificial intelligence can perform many of the analytical, strategic, and operational tasks that have formed the core of undergraduate and graduate business curricula? This is not a hypothetical concern. Recent empirical research demonstrates that generative AI systems can complete complex business tasks—from strategic analysis to financial modeling to marketing strategy development—at levels comparable to or exceeding those of business school graduates (Dell'Acqua et al., 2023). Accenture projects that large language models could impact 40% of current work hours (Anghel, 2023), with particular concentration in the knowledge-intensive domains that business education has traditionally served.

The challenge facing business schools extends beyond simply integrating new technologies into existing curricula. Instead, AI fundamentally disrupts the value creation architecture that has sustained business education since the mid-twentieth century. Undergraduate business programs have long promised foundational knowledge, analytical skills, and career preparation. Graduate programs, including MBAs and specialized masters, have offered advanced frameworks, expanded networks, and credential signals that open doors to consulting, finance, and corporate leadership. Both levels have positioned themselves as essential pathways to business careers, justified by substantial tuition investments.

Yet these value propositions rest on assumptions that AI is actively undermining. When AI systems can generate sophisticated strategic analyses, financial projections, and marketing plans in seconds, the knowledge-transfer function of business education becomes commoditized. When online platforms and AI tutors can provide personalized instruction at scale, the delivery mechanism loses exclusivity. When credential inflation already strains the signaling value of business degrees, AI-augmented alternatives threaten further erosion.

This article examines the strategic position of business schools across undergraduate and graduate education through the lens of value creation and capture (Brandenburger & Stuart, 1996). We analyze how AI disrupts traditional sources of value, explore the organizational and structural barriers preventing rapid adaptation, and propose evidence-based strategies for business schools to reinvent their programs around capabilities that remain distinctively human. Our analysis suggests that business schools face not merely a technological challenge but a fundamental strategic choice: continue optimizing traditional models that AI is rendering obsolete, or undertake radical reinvention around irreducibly human capabilities in business judgment, relationship building, and ethical navigation.

The Business Education Landscape and Its Evolution

Defining Business Education's Historical Value Proposition

Modern business education emerged in the early twentieth century with a dual mission: professionalizing business practice and providing practical skills for industrial management. The landmark Gordon and Howell report (1959) catalyzed a transformation toward more rigorous, theoretically grounded education, emphasizing analytical methods and scientific management principles. This shift established business schools as bridges between academic research and professional practice (Khurana, 2007).

By the late twentieth century, business education had evolved into a distinctive value proposition operating across multiple levels:

Undergraduate Business Education positioned itself as:

• Foundation builder: Providing core knowledge in accounting, finance, marketing, operations, and strategy

• Career launcher: Offering recruitment pipelines, internship connections, and professional development

• Skill developer: Building analytical capabilities, communication skills, and team collaboration

• Network initiator: Creating peer connections and alumni relationships that extend throughout careers

Graduate Business Education (MBA and specialized masters programs) layered additional value:

• Career transformer: Enabling industry switches, functional pivots, and accelerated advancement

• Network amplifier: Providing access to executive networks, recruiting channels, and alumni ecosystems

• Credential signal: Certifying capability, ambition, and cognitive ability to employers

• Framework provider: Teaching advanced analytical tools, strategic thinking, and leadership approaches

This multi-level value architecture generated substantial willingness-to-pay. By the 2020s, undergraduate business degrees represented the most popular major in U.S. higher education, with over 380,000 bachelor's degrees conferred annually (NCES, 2023). Graduate business programs collectively enrolled over 200,000 students in the United States alone, with elite programs commanding tuition exceeding $150,000 (AACSB, 2023).

The Ranking-Driven Equilibrium and Institutional Homogenization

The rise of business school rankings fundamentally shaped the competitive dynamics and strategic choices of programs at all levels. While undergraduate business rankings exist, the graduate MBA rankings published by Financial Times, U.S. News, Bloomberg Businessweek, and The Economist became particularly powerful forces that created strong convergence pressures (Gioia & Corley, 2002).

These ranking systems measure similar dimensions across undergraduate and graduate programs:

• Starting salaries and employment outcomes (heavily weighted)

• Standardized test scores (SAT/ACT for undergraduates; GMAT/GRE for graduate programs)

• Student selectivity (acceptance rates, yield rates)

• Faculty research productivity (publications in top journals)

• Student satisfaction and recruiting metrics

The ranking methodology creates powerful incentives for strategic homogenization. Graduate programs particularly converge around:

• Recruitment focus: Prioritizing employers who offer high starting salaries (consulting, finance, technology)

• Student selection: Emphasizing test scores and undergraduate credentials that boost ranking inputs

• Curriculum standardization: Teaching similar core frameworks (Porter's Five Forces, BCG Matrix, financial modeling)

• Faculty hiring: Recruiting scholars with publication records in top journals, regardless of teaching effectiveness

• Career services: Optimizing placement into industries with highest compensation

For undergraduate programs, similar dynamics apply, though with less intensity given lower ranking stakes. Programs compete on metrics like career placement rates, average starting salaries, and graduate school admission rates, creating parallel convergence pressures.

This equilibrium delivered substantial benefits during the period of steady value proposition—predictable career outcomes, clear quality signals, and efficient matching between students and employers. However, it also created structural rigidity precisely when environmental conditions began shifting fundamentally.

State of Business Education Enrollments and Economics

Despite growing questions about value, business education remains resilient by traditional metrics, though with emerging signs of stress:

Undergraduate Business Programs:

• Remain the most popular major in U.S. higher education (NCES, 2023)

• Show continued growth in enrollments, particularly at flagship public universities

• Face increasing scrutiny on ROI, especially at regional institutions where tuition has risen faster than graduate salary premiums

• Experience growing competition from technology-focused alternatives (data science, information systems, computer science with business minors)

Graduate Business Programs:

• Full-time MBA programs at top institutions maintain strong demand but face enrollment challenges at lower-ranked schools

• Specialized masters programs (business analytics, finance, management) show growth as alternatives to traditional MBA

• Executive MBA and part-time formats remain stable, serving experienced professionals

• Online MBA programs expand rapidly, with lower price points disrupting traditional residential models

Economic Model Challenges:

Both undergraduate and graduate programs face parallel economic pressures:

• Rising tuition outpacing inflation, particularly at private institutions

• Increasing student debt burden prompting ROI scrutiny

• Growing employer skepticism about degree value relative to cost

• Competition from alternative credentials (bootcamps, online certificates, micro-credentials)

• Pressure to reduce time-to-degree to improve ROI calculations

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated several trends: acceptance of online delivery, employer flexibility on degree requirements, and student cost-consciousness. These shifts created openings for AI-enabled alternatives precisely as generative AI capabilities reached inflection points.

Organizational and Individual Consequences of AI Disruption

Erosion of Traditional Value Pillars Across Program Levels

AI's impact on business education operates through simultaneous disruption of multiple value sources, affecting both undergraduate and graduate programs but with varying intensity:

Knowledge Transfer and Skill Development:

The traditional case method, analytical frameworks, and problem-solving approaches that form the core of business curricula assume scarcity of analytical capability. Students learn financial modeling, strategic analysis, marketing strategy, and operational optimization because these skills create value in business contexts.

Recent evidence challenges this assumption across skill levels:

• BCG research demonstrates that consultants using GPT-4 complete business tasks 25% faster with 40% higher quality, with particular gains among lower-performing individuals (Dell'Acqua et al., 2023)

• AI systems now perform comparable to top business school graduates on complex case analyses, strategic recommendations, and quantitative modeling (Jacobides & Ma, 2024b)

• Studies of human-AI collaboration show that AI augmentation particularly benefits those with less experience and expertise, potentially compressing the skill development curve that justified multi-year educational investments (Choudhary et al., 2025)

For undergraduate students, this raises questions about the career preparation value of traditional business curricula. If entry-level analysts and associates increasingly work with AI systems that handle complex modeling and analysis, what skills should undergraduate programs prioritize?

For graduate students, particularly MBAs and specialized masters students, the implications are more acute. These programs charge premium tuition partly based on teaching advanced analytical frameworks and strategic tools. When AI can generate sophisticated strategic analyses, financial projections, and market assessments, the incremental value of two years studying these frameworks becomes questionable.

Credential Signaling:

Business degrees at both levels have historically functioned as signals of capability, work ethic, and cognitive ability (Spence, 1973). Employers use degree prestige and GPA as screening mechanisms, particularly for competitive recruiting programs.

AI disrupts this signaling mechanism through several channels:

• Capability demonstration alternatives: Students can now build portfolios of AI-augmented projects that demonstrate actual business impact rather than relying solely on degree credentials

• Assessment inflation: AI enables sophisticated assistance on assignments and exams, potentially degrading the information content of grades and degree completion

• Skill obsolescence: Credentials certifying knowledge that AI can replicate lose signaling value more rapidly than credentials certifying irreplaceable human capabilities

• Employer screening evolution: Companies increasingly use work samples, simulations, and project-based assessments rather than degree credentials alone

For undergraduate programs, this evolution might eventually benefit students by reducing credential barriers. However, it undermines the core value proposition that justifies substantial tuition investments.

For graduate programs, particularly prestigious MBA programs, the signaling disruption is more problematic. Much of the willingness-to-pay for elite MBA programs comes from the credential's value in opening doors to consulting, finance, and executive roles. If employers develop alternative screening mechanisms or if AI enables direct demonstration of capabilities, this signaling premium erodes.

Relationship Building and Network Development:

Business education at all levels emphasizes peer learning, networking, and relationship building. Undergraduate programs provide first professional networks; graduate programs amplify and diversify these connections. This relationship-building function has proven more resistant to online disruption than knowledge transfer, justifying premium pricing for residential programs.

AI affects this value pillar more subtly but significantly:

First, AI-enabled remote collaboration tools reduce the advantage of physical co-location. Students can maintain sophisticated professional relationships, collaborate on complex projects, and build reputational capital without residential proximity.

Second, AI changes the economics of relationship building. If AI handles routine analysis and communication, the human relationships that matter most become those involving high-stakes judgment, ethical navigation, and trust-intensive decisions. This potentially increases the value of deep, high-quality relationships while reducing the value of broad networks built around information exchange and transactional support.

Third, the career pathways that traditional business school networks serve are themselves being disrupted. If AI reduces demand for analysts, associates, and middle managers—the roles that traditionally hired business school graduates—then networks optimized for placement into these roles lose value.

Research on peer learning in business education (Subhankar, 2021) and the value of campus-based networking (Graham et al., 2018) suggests this dimension remains valuable. However, the question becomes whether relationship building alone justifies 50,000−200,000 educational investments when knowledge transfer and credential signaling erode.

Impact on Different Program Types and Tiers

AI's disruption affects different types of business programs asymmetrically:

Elite Residential Programs (top undergraduate business schools; top-20 MBA programs):

• Relative resilience: Strong brand equity, exclusive networks, and employer relationships provide buffers

• Vulnerability: High tuition creates acute ROI pressure; if knowledge content commodifies, relationship value alone may not justify premium pricing

• Strategic challenge: Must differentiate on dimensions beyond analytical training while maintaining employer demand

Mid-Tier Programs (ranked 20-100 for graduate programs; regional flagships for undergraduate):

• Greatest vulnerability: Compete primarily on knowledge transfer and career placement rather than exclusive networks

• Economic pressure: Lower starting salaries for graduates make ROI calculations more challenging as tuition rises

• Strategic dilemma: Cannot compete on prestige/network with elite schools; struggle to compete on cost/convenience with online alternatives

Online and Part-Time Programs:

• Disruption and opportunity: Already optimized for flexibility; potentially well-positioned to integrate AI tools

• Differentiation challenge: Lower price points suggest commoditization; AI may accelerate this trend

• Value proposition: Must articulate what residential-alternative formats provide beyond content delivery

Specialized Masters Programs (business analytics, finance, management):

• Acute vulnerability: Often focused on specific technical skills that AI may augment or replace

• Adaptation opportunity: Shorter duration and specialized focus may enable faster curriculum evolution

• Strategic question: Whether to double down on technical depth or pivot toward AI-augmented roles

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses

Table 1: Business School Responses and Initiatives for the AI Transformation

Institution	Program Level	Strategic Initiative or Redesign	Core Capabilities Addressed	Pedagogical Approach	Intended Impact on Value Proposition
The Wharton School	Undergraduate and MBA	Representational thinking and AI Learning Partner curriculum redesign	Causal reasoning, representational design, and critical evaluation of AI outputs	Students design custom analytical lenses and use AI to generate initial case analyses to be critiqued in class	Differentiating from mechanical framework application by targeting causal reasoning and deeper contextual factors
University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business	Not in source	AI-augmented strategists core strategy course redesign	Judgment regarding AI trust, prompting, and integration of AI insights with contextual knowledge	Students formulate strategic questions and evaluate AI-generated analyses for logical coherence and appropriateness	Synthesizing AI capabilities with human judgment to evolve beyond traditional analytical roles
Harvard Business School	MBA	Leadership and Corporate Accountability modules	Ethical navigation, stakeholder conflict resolution, and value trade-offs	Repeated exposure to cases featuring analytical clarity alongside persistent ethical ambiguity	Developing judgment in domains where AI-driven complexity requires human resolution
MIT Sloan	Undergraduate	Ethical Dilemmas in Data-Driven Decision Making integration	Ethical reasoning regarding algorithmic bias, privacy, and automation's effects	Integration of ethical dilemmas throughout core courses rather than as standalone content	Preparing students for human-centric navigation of AI-driven ethical complexity
Stanford Graduate School of Business	Not in source	AI-augmented case method	Judgment regarding implementation, organizational politics, and leadership dynamics	Using AI for case preparation while focusing class discussion on dimensions where AI recommendations fail	Highlighting that business challenges resist purely analytical solutions provided by AI
University of Michigan's Ross School of Business	Undergraduate and MBA	Multidisciplinary Action Project (MAP)	Navigating organizational complexity, stakeholder politics, and accountability	Experiential learning through immersive consulting projects with real clients	Developing business judgment through iteration and real-world consequences
Babson College	Undergraduate and Graduate	Venture creation curriculum redesign	Reading subtle customer signals, building trust, and adapting to emergent feedback	Experiential learning requiring actual venture building rather than business plan writing	Targeting capabilities AI cannot replicate, such as human-centric persistence and market adaptation
University of Virginia's Darden School of Business	MBA	Alumni Mentorship Redesign	Relationship development, advocacy, and industry guidance	Integrating assigned alumni mentors with structured touchpoints throughout the program	Facilitating high-quality human relationships that provide value beyond searchable networks
University of California Berkeley's Haas School of Business	Not in source	Haas@Work platform model	Ecosystem orchestration and knowledge flow coordination	A platform connecting student teams, AI tools, faculty, and corporate partners for strategic problem-solving	Orchestrating connections rather than relying on proprietary content delivery in a commoditized environment
University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School	Not in source	Wharton Interactive	Not in source	AI-enhanced simulations and specialized learning experiences developed by an autonomous unit	Building strategic agility by bypassing traditional academic governance for rapid technological experimentation

Business schools have begun responding to AI's challenge, though responses vary dramatically in ambition and strategic coherence. This section examines evidence-based approaches emerging across undergraduate and graduate programs, organized around distinct strategic dimensions.

Curriculum Redesign: Beyond "AI Literacy" Courses

The most common initial response involves adding AI-focused courses—"AI for Business," "Machine Learning Applications," "Generative AI Strategy"—to existing curricula. While directionally appropriate, this approach treats AI as content to learn rather than as a fundamental challenge to what business education should accomplish.

More sophisticated curricular approaches emerging across programs include:

Human-AI Collaboration as Core Competency:

Forward-thinking programs are reconceptualizing business education around the question: "What can humans do better than AI, and what can AI do better than humans?" This framing shifts curriculum from teaching analytical techniques toward developing judgment about when to trust AI outputs, how to prompt effectively, and how to integrate AI-generated insights with contextual knowledge (National Academies, 2022).

The University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business redesigned its core strategy course to position students as "AI-augmented strategists" rather than traditional analysts (Bien et al., 2024). Students learn to:

• Formulate strategic questions that AI can productively address

• Evaluate AI-generated strategic analyses for logical coherence, factual accuracy, and contextual appropriateness

• Integrate AI insights with qualitative information about organizational culture, stakeholder politics, and implementation constraints

• Make recommendations that synthesize AI capabilities with irreducibly human judgment

Early assessment suggests students develop more sophisticated strategic thinking than in traditional case-based approaches, precisely because they must explicitly reason about what analytical tasks to delegate to AI versus what requires human contextual judgment.

Causal Reasoning and Strategic Representation:

Business education has long taught frameworks (Porter's Five Forces, SWOT analysis, business model canvas) as analytical tools. Research on strategic cognition suggests these frameworks function as "representations" that direct attention and enable pattern recognition (Csaszar, 2018).

AI can apply these frameworks mechanically but struggles with the deeper capability: constructing novel representations tailored to specific strategic contexts. The Wharton School has redesigned portions of its undergraduate and MBA strategy curricula around "representational thinking"—teaching students not just to use existing frameworks but to design context-specific analytical lenses (Heshmati & Csaszar, 2024).

This pedagogical approach emphasizes:

• Understanding the assumptions and limitations embedded in standard business frameworks

• Recognizing when standard frameworks mislead by obscuring critical contextual factors

• Designing custom analytical representations that capture unique strategic dynamics

• Translating between formal analytical representations and messy organizational reality

This shift from "framework application" to "representational design" targets a capability AI systems currently lack: causal reasoning about which aspects of a situation matter most and how they interrelate (Felin & Holweg, 2024).

Ethical Reasoning and Stakeholder Navigation:

As AI handles more routine business analysis, remaining human judgment increasingly involves ethical dimensions, stakeholder conflicts, and value trade-offs that resist purely analytical resolution. Several programs are expanding ethics content beyond standalone courses toward integration throughout the curriculum.

Harvard Business School revised its MBA curriculum to incorporate "Leadership and Corporate Accountability" modules across the first year, requiring students to analyze cases where analytical clarity exists but ethical ambiguity persists (HBS, 2023). Rather than teaching ethical frameworks as abstract principles, the approach develops judgment through repeated exposure to business situations where:

• Multiple stakeholders have legitimate but conflicting interests

• Short-term and long-term considerations point toward different actions

• Legal compliance and ethical responsibility diverge

• Quantifiable outcomes and unquantifiable values compete

MIT Sloan's undergraduate business program integrated "Ethical Dilemmas in Data-Driven Decision Making" throughout core courses rather than as standalone content. Students engage with cases involving algorithmic bias, privacy trade-offs, and automation's distributional effects—precisely the domains where AI systems create ethical complexity that human judgment must navigate (Mehrabi et al., 2021).

Pedagogical Innovation: AI as Learning Partner:

Beyond curriculum content, some programs are reconceptualizing pedagogy itself. Rather than positioning AI as a threat to academic integrity or a tool students use outside class, these approaches integrate AI into the learning process as a "thought partner."

The Wharton School's undergraduate program piloted an approach where students use AI to generate initial case analyses, then critique these analyses in class discussion (Mollick & Mollick, 2024). This pedagogical design:

• Accelerates coverage by offloading basic analytical work to AI

• Develops critical evaluation skills by requiring students to identify weaknesses in AI outputs

• Surfaces misconceptions when students compare AI analyses to their own reasoning

• Creates space for deeper discussion of contextual factors and strategic trade-offs that AI misses

Stanford Graduate School of Business developed an "AI-augmented case method" where students prepare cases using AI tools but class discussion focuses on dimensions where AI recommendations prove inadequate—implementation challenges, organizational politics, stakeholder management, leadership dynamics. This approach makes explicit what traditional case method often left implicit: business challenges resist purely analytical solutions.

Experiential Learning and Real-World Integration

If knowledge transfer increasingly commodifies, business education's value shifts toward capabilities developed through practice rather than instruction. Several programs are dramatically expanding experiential components across undergraduate and graduate levels:

Immersive Consulting Projects:

The University of Michigan's Ross School of Business requires all undergraduate business majors to complete a semester-long "Multidisciplinary Action Project" where student teams address real business challenges for corporate or nonprofit clients. Rather than simulated cases, students navigate actual organizational complexity: incomplete information, stakeholder politics, implementation constraints, and accountability for results.

For MBA students, Ross extended this model with the "MAP" program requiring seven-week consulting projects where teams work on-site with organizations globally. The explicit pedagogical theory: business judgment develops through iteration, feedback, and consequences—experiences that classroom instruction alone cannot provide.

Startup Immersion and Venture Building:

Recognizing that entrepreneurship remains intensely human-centric despite AI tools, several programs have expanded startup-building experiences. Babson College, long focused on entrepreneurship education, redesigned both undergraduate and graduate curricula to require venture creation rather than venture planning.

Students don't write business plans (AI can do this competently); they build ventures, test assumptions with customers, pivot based on feedback, and experience the gap between analytical projections and market reality. This pedagogical approach explicitly targets capabilities AI cannot replicate: reading subtle customer signals, building trust with co-founders, persisting through ambiguity, and adapting to emergent feedback.

Network Architecture and Relationship Development

If AI commodifies knowledge but not relationships, business schools might logically invest more heavily in network development and relationship building. However, effective network architecture requires more than social events and alumni databases.

Curated Cohort Design:

Several elite programs have moved toward smaller, more selective cohorts with intensive relationship-building structures. INSEAD's MBA program, while large overall, creates "sections" of 60-70 students who take all first-year courses together, work in assigned teams, and participate in structured networking and feedback sessions.

The pedagogical theory: deep relationships require extended interaction, vulnerability, and mutual support—dynamics that large lectures and elective-heavy curricula undermine. By creating cohort structures with frequent interaction and high interdependence, programs facilitate relationship formation that online platforms and larger programs cannot replicate (Konrad et al., 2016).

Alumni Integration and Mentorship:

The University of Virginia's Darden School of Business redesigned its MBA program to integrate alumni mentorship throughout the two years rather than as episodic career advising. Every student receives an assigned alumni mentor in their target industry, with structured touchpoints, project reviews, and relationship development.

This approach recognizes that network value comes less from database access to thousands of alumni than from deep relationships with specific individuals who provide guidance, introductions, and advocacy. The program creates structures that facilitate these deeper connections rather than assuming they emerge organically.

For undergraduate programs, Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business created a "professional development cohort" model where groups of 15-20 students work with dedicated alumni mentors throughout four years, creating continuity and relationship depth unusual in undergraduate education.

Institutional Positioning and Strategic Differentiation

Beyond specific programmatic responses, some business schools are making more fundamental strategic choices about positioning and value proposition:

Specialist Positioning Around Distinctive Capabilities:

Rather than competing as comprehensive business schools teaching all functions similarly, several programs are differentiating around specific capabilities where they claim distinctive excellence.

Yale School of Management positions its MBA program around "integrated leadership for business and society," explicitly prioritizing students interested in social impact, sustainability, and stakeholder capitalism over those pursuing traditional consulting and finance paths. This specialist strategy accepts lower rankings on traditional metrics (average starting salary) in exchange for stronger differentiation with a specific student and employer segment.

Northwestern's Kellogg School of Business has doubled down on marketing and consumer insights as core strengths, building curriculum, faculty, and experiential opportunities around these domains rather than attempting equal excellence across all business functions.

For undergraduate programs, similar differentiation is emerging. Emory's Goizueta Business School emphasizes "ethical leadership and social responsibility" as core identity, attracting students who prioritize these dimensions over pure career optimization.

Platform and Ecosystem Models:

Drawing on ecosystem strategy literature (Jacobides et al., 2018; Adner, 2017), some business schools are reconceptualizing themselves as platforms connecting multiple stakeholders rather than as content-delivery institutions.

The University of California Berkeley's Haas School of Business developed "Haas@Work," a platform connecting students, faculty, alumni, and corporate partners around real business challenges. Rather than simulated cases, companies pose actual strategic questions; student teams address them using AI tools and faculty guidance; alumni provide industry context; and companies receive actionable insights.

This platform model creates value through orchestrating connections and facilitating knowledge flow rather than through proprietary content delivery—a strategic shift aligned with AI's impact on knowledge commodification.

Building Long-Term Institutional Resilience and Adaptive Capacity

Responding tactically to AI's disruption—adding courses, integrating tools, expanding experiential learning—addresses immediate pressures but may prove insufficient if AI's trajectory continues accelerating business automation. Business schools must simultaneously build institutional capabilities for continuous adaptation across undergraduate and graduate programs.

Organizational Learning Systems and Curriculum Evolution

Business schools face a paradox: they teach organizational learning and adaptive strategy while often struggling to apply these principles to their own institutions. Building adaptive capacity requires systems for sensing environmental change, interpreting implications, and implementing responses—precisely the capabilities business schools teach but often lack internally (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006).

Continuous Environmental Scanning:

The University of Cambridge Judge Business School created a "Futures Lab" charged with monitoring technological, economic, and social trends affecting business education's value proposition. Rather than episodic strategic planning, this unit continuously scans for weak signals:

• Employer evolving skill requirements and recruitment practices

• Student perception shifts regarding degree value and career priorities

• Technological developments in AI, online learning, and credentialing alternatives

• Competitive moves by business schools, bootcamps, and corporate training programs

The Lab produces quarterly reports for faculty and administrators, creates scenario analyses for strategic discussions, and recommends curriculum experiments. This institutionalizes environmental awareness rather than relying on ad hoc faculty observations.

Rapid Curriculum Experimentation:

Traditional academic governance—faculty committees, lengthy approval processes, semester-based scheduling—impedes rapid adaptation. Several schools have created "innovation zones" with streamlined approval for experimental courses and pedagogical approaches.

London Business School's MBA program allocates 15% of curriculum slots to "experimental modules" that faculty can propose and launch with abbreviated approval if they address emerging business challenges or test new pedagogical approaches. Successful experiments migrate into core curriculum; unsuccessful ones sunset quickly. This creates institutional permission for rapid iteration.

For undergraduate programs, similar approaches are emerging. The University of Texas McCombs School of Business created "Special Topics" course slots that faculty can use for experimental offerings without full curriculum committee approval, enabling faster response to emerging domains.

Faculty Development and Incentive Realignment:

Business school faculty incentives—particularly at research-intensive institutions—emphasize publication in top journals over teaching innovation or curriculum adaptation. Journal publication cycles span years; AI developments unfold in months. This temporal mismatch creates friction.

Some schools are experimenting with modified incentive structures:

• Teaching innovation credits that count toward promotion comparable to research publications

• Funds for faculty to develop AI-augmented pedagogical approaches

• Collaborative teaching models where junior faculty with AI expertise partner with senior faculty with domain expertise

• Sabbaticals focused on curriculum redesign rather than only research

These changes face significant resistance from traditional academic norms. However, schools that successfully realign incentives toward teaching innovation may develop sustainable advantages in curriculum adaptation.

Stakeholder Engagement and Value Co-Creation

Business schools operate within complex stakeholder ecosystems: students, employers, alumni, accrediting bodies, university administrations, and faculty. Adapting to AI requires engaging these stakeholders as value co-creators rather than passive beneficiaries.

Employer Partnership Models:

Rather than treating employers solely as recruiters, some schools are developing deeper partnerships around curriculum design and student development.

Georgia Tech's Scheller College of Business created an "Industry Advisory Council" that extends beyond occasional meetings to substantive collaboration:

• Quarterly curriculum reviews where employers assess alignment between teaching content and business needs

• Joint design of capstone projects addressing actual corporate strategic challenges

• Employer-funded faculty research on AI's impact on business roles and required capabilities

• Shared assessment of graduate outcomes beyond simple placement rates

This partnership model provides continuous feedback on value proposition effectiveness while creating employer investment in program success.

Alumni as Learning Resources:

Business schools typically engage alumni primarily for fundraising and recruiting. More sophisticated models integrate alumni as active participants in student learning.

IESE Business School's MBA program redesigned alumni engagement around "Executive Perspectives" sessions where recent graduates (1-5 years out) return to campus monthly to discuss how their roles have evolved, which MBA learning proved most valuable, and what capabilities they wish they'd developed more fully.

These sessions provide current students with realistic, current perspectives on business education's career value while giving alumni continued connection to the school. For faculty, the sessions provide market feedback on curriculum relevance.

Governance Structures for Strategic Agility

Business schools' governance structures—faculty committees, accreditation requirements, university bureaucracy—often impede rapid strategic adaptation. While academic governance serves important quality-assurance and shared-governance functions, it can also create decision-making inertia precisely when environmental turbulence demands agility (Hannan & Freeman, 1984).

Distributed Authority and Autonomous Units:

Several business schools have created semi-autonomous units with authority to experiment outside traditional governance constraints.

The University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School established "Wharton Interactive," a separate unit developing AI-enhanced simulations and learning experiences. Rather than routing innovations through full faculty governance, this unit operates with streamlined oversight, rapid iteration, and separate assessment criteria.

Similarly, Duke's Fuqua School of Business created "Fuqua Edge," a co-curricular program focused on professional development, leadership, and career preparation that operates independently of traditional academic governance. This structural separation enables faster evolution in response to employer and student feedback.

Adaptive Strategic Planning:

Traditional strategic planning—five-year plans, fixed objectives, detailed implementation roadmaps—assumes environmental stability. AI's rapid evolution makes such plans obsolete quickly.

Some schools are experimenting with adaptive planning approaches:

• Rolling three-year plans updated annually rather than fixed long-term plans

• Scenario-based planning that explores multiple futures rather than optimizing for one projected future

• "Real options" approaches that maintain strategic flexibility through parallel experiments

• Metrics focused on learning velocity and adaptation speed rather than only enrollment and placement outcomes

INSEAD's strategic planning process explicitly incorporates "strategic flexibility metrics" alongside traditional performance indicators—measuring how quickly programs can launch new courses, how extensively curriculum has been revised, and how many pedagogical experiments are underway. These metrics signal that adaptation capacity itself is a strategic objective, not just a means to other ends.

Conclusion

Business education faces a moment of profound strategic uncertainty. Generative AI simultaneously threatens traditional value propositions while creating opportunities for schools that successfully reinvent their role in professional preparation. The evidence reviewed in this article suggests several conclusions:

First, incremental responses are insufficient. Adding AI courses, integrating tools into existing curricula, and updating case materials address tactical concerns but leave fundamental value propositions vulnerable. Business schools must reconceptualize what they certify, what capabilities they develop, and what value they create in an AI-augmented economy.

Second, differentiation becomes imperative. The ranking-driven equilibrium that produced strategic convergence among business schools—teaching similar frameworks, recruiting similar students, placing graduates in similar roles—becomes untenable when AI commodifies the knowledge those frameworks represent. Schools must make explicit strategic choices about distinctive positioning, accepting that optimization for traditional ranking metrics may conflict with long-term sustainability.

Third, relationships and judgment represent defensible value. While AI erodes returns to analytical knowledge and technical skills, capabilities involving contextual judgment, ethical reasoning, stakeholder navigation, and relationship building remain distinctively human. Business education that successfully develops these capabilities—through experiential learning, intensive cohort experiences, and real-world problem engagement—retains value proposition clarity.

Fourth, organizational adaptation capacity matters as much as current program design. Given AI's rapid evolution, the specific curricula business schools offer today will require continuous revision. Schools that build institutional capabilities for environmental scanning, rapid experimentation, and faculty development will maintain relevance better than those that optimize current programs but lack adaptive capacity.

Fifth, the business education landscape will likely fragment. The current relatively homogeneous landscape—where most business schools offer similar degrees with similar structures targeting similar careers—will probably give way to greater diversity: specialist schools focused on specific capabilities or industries; platform models orchestrating learning ecosystems; low-cost online providers delivering commodified knowledge; elite residential programs emphasizing exclusive networks and intensive development experiences.

For students, these dynamics create both uncertainty and opportunity. Business degrees will likely remain valuable credentials, but the magnitude and source of that value will vary dramatically across institutions and program types. Prospective students must evaluate whether specific programs develop capabilities AI cannot replicate and whether career pathways those programs serve remain viable as AI transforms business roles.

For faculty, AI's disruption challenges traditional academic models—research, publication, and teaching within established disciplinary boundaries. Faculty who develop capabilities in AI-augmented pedagogy, who bridge analytical rigor with practical relevance, and who generate knowledge about business challenges AI creates (rather than only studying established domains) will likely find expanding opportunities.

For employers, business education's evolution creates both challenges and potential benefits. Organizations must reassess what business degrees signal about candidate capabilities, develop alternative assessment mechanisms for roles where degrees previously served as proxies, and potentially deepen partnerships with educational institutions to ensure talent pipelines aligned with evolving business needs.

The ultimate question is whether business schools—institutions that have taught adaptation, innovation, and strategic transformation for decades—can apply those principles to their own reinvention. The answer will determine whether business education remains central to professional preparation or becomes peripheral to an AI-augmented business landscape that develops capabilities through alternative pathways.

The schools that thrive will be those that embrace strategic divergence, build distinctive capabilities around irreplaceable human judgment, create adaptive institutional structures, and continuously reinvent their value propositions as AI's impact unfolds. Those that optimize legacy models, compete on traditional metrics, and pursue incremental adjustments risk obsolescence—precisely the fate they teach students to avoid through strategic foresight and organizational adaptation.

Business education's response to artificial intelligence represents more than a technological challenge or curricular update. It represents a test of whether institutions can practice what they teach: strategic awareness, adaptive capacity, and the courage to reinvent rather than optimize when environments fundamentally shift.

References

1. AACSB. (2023). 2022-2023 Business school data guide. AACSB International.

2. Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58.

3. Adner, R., Puranam, P., & Zhu, F. (2016). What is different about digital strategy? From quantitative to qualitative change. Strategy Science, 1(4), 253–261.

4. Amodei, D. (2024). Machines of loving grace. Anthropic Blog.

5. Anghel, M. (2023). A new era of generative AI for everyone. Accenture Technology Vision 2023.

6. Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine bias. ProPublica, May 23.

7. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.

8. Arrieta, A. B., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., García, S., Gil-López, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., Chatila, R., & Herrera, F. (2020). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion, 58, 82–115.

9. Augier, M., & March, J. G. (2011). The roots, rituals, and rhetorics of change: North American business schools after the Second World War. Stanford University Press.

10. Bennis, W. G., & O'Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–104.

11. Bien, J., Csaszar, F. A., & Laureiro-Martínez, D. (2024). Teaching strategy with generative AI: Early experiments and lessons. Academy of Management Learning & Education.

12. Brandenburger, A., & Stuart, H. (1996). Value-based business strategy. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 5(1), 5–24.

13. Bresnahan, T. (2024). Artificial intelligence technologies and aggregate growth prospects. NBER Working Paper No. 32659.

14. Choudhary, V., Fainmesser, I. P., & Kumar, A. (2025). At the crossroads: AI's impact on platform competition. Management Science (forthcoming).

15. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press.

16. Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., Caldera, L., & Soares, L. (2011). Disrupting college: How disruptive innovation can deliver quality and affordability to postsecondary education. Innosight Institute.

17. Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. McGraw-Hill.

18. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.

19. Csaszar, F. A. (2018). A note on how NK landscapes work. Journal of Organization Design, 7(1), Article 15.

20. Csaszar, F. A. (2020). Strategy making under uncertainty: The role of formal models. Strategic Management Journal, 41(4), 697–723.

21. Csaszar, F. A., Laureiro-Martínez, D., & Katila, R. (2024a). Managing with external representations. Organization Science, 35(1), 1–21.

22. Csaszar, F. A., Lee, K., & Katila, R. (2024b). Strategy meets AI: Using cognitive science to understand AI's impact on strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal.

23. Csaszar, F. A., & Ostler, J. (2020). A contingency theory of representational complexity in organizations. Organization Science, 31(5), 1198–1219.

24. Csaszar, F. A., & Steinberger, T. (2022). Organizations as artificial intelligences: The use of artificial intelligence analogies in organization theory. Academy of Management Annals, 16(1), 1–37.

25. Dell'Acqua, F., McFowland, E., Mollick, E. R., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Kellogg, K., Rajendran, S., Krayer, L., Candelon, F., & Lakhani, K. R. (2023). Navigating the jagged technological frontier: Field experimental evidence of the effects of AI on knowledge worker productivity and quality. Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Management Unit Working Paper No. 24-013.

26. Felin, T., & Holweg, M. (2024). Theory is all you need: AI, human cognition, and decision making. Working Paper, University of Oxford.

27. Financial Times. (2024). Global MBA ranking 2024 methodology. Financial Times, January.

28. Gioia, D. A., & Corley, K. G. (2002). Being good versus looking good: Business school rankings and the Circean transformation from substance to image. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 107–120.

29. Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. (1959). Higher education for business. Columbia University Press.

30. Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A., & Handelsman, J. (2018). Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 361(6409), 1455–1456.

31. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164.

32. HBS. (2023). HBS announces new required curriculum. Harvard Business School Newsroom, March 14.

33. Heshmati, S., & Csaszar, F. A. (2024). Learning strategic representations. Strategic Management Journal.

34. Hoffman, R. R., Mueller, S. T., Klein, G., & Litman, J. (2019). Metrics for explainable AI: Challenges and prospects. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04608.

35. Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276.

36. Jacobides, M. G., & Ma, Q. (2024a). Artificial intelligence and UK competitive landscape: Scenarios and implications. UK Competition and Markets Authority.

37. Jacobides, M. G., & Ma, Q. (2024b). How is generative AI affecting creative work? Evidence from an online labor market for illustrators. Working Paper, London Business School.

38. Jacobides, M. G., Sundararajan, A., & Van Alstyne, M. (2024). Generative AI and platform ecosystems. Academy of Management Perspectives (forthcoming).

39. Kalsi, S., & Samuels, P. (2019). Student networking: Developing early career social capital. Education + Training, 61(3), 366–382.

40. Kelly, D., & Amburgey, T. L. (1991). Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 591–612.

41. Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton University Press.

42. Konrad, A. M., Cannings, K., & Goldberg, C. B. (2016). Participation in business school research networks and faculty publication productivity. Organization Science, 21(2), 451–467.

43. Lister, K. (2022). The value of MBA networks in career development. Journal of Management Development, 41(2), 89–104.

44. Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2021). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), Article 115.

45. Mollick, E. R., & Mollick, L. (2024). Assigning AI: Seven approaches for students, with prompts. Wharton School Research Paper.

46. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). Human-AI teaming: State-of-the-art and research needs. National Academies Press.

47. NCES. (2023). Digest of Education Statistics. National Center for Education Statistics.

48. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Evidence-based management. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 62–74.

49. Salas-Díaz, A., & Young, M. D. (2025). Global elite education and international student mobility. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 46(1), 1–18.

50. Subhankar, C. (2021). Peer learning in business education: A systematic review. International Journal of Management Education, 19(2), 100485.

51. Useem, M. (2014). Business schools must prepare students to face disruption. Financial Times, September 14.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2026). The Third Epoch: How Business Schools Can Navigate the AI Transformation. Human Capital Leadership Review, 29(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.29.2.5