GBSN CEO

The Case for Critical Thinking: Training the Managerial Mind in the Age of AI

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

Imagine the hurried life of a typical business student today, grabbing the last table at the coffee shop, busting out the laptop to tackle a complex case about an underperforming multinational company. The question is simple and open-ended: “What’s wrong with the company and what should leadership do next?” Our student promptly copies and pastes the case and question into ChatGPT and downloads a structured answer. It looks clear and compelling—and right. She inserts a few “human” touches (i.e., grammatical errors) before pressing the send button to her teammates. By then her latte is ready and she has just enough time to make it to her job interview.

What’s missing from this scenario? Everything that matters, as far as I’m concerned. Analyzing a case means exploring assumptions, considering the context, doing additional research, and applying multiple frameworks and perspectives. The stuff that takes lots of time and intellectual energy.

Learning is like food and finance. You can’t stay healthy without managing your diet now. You can’t increase wealth without saving now. And you can’t acquire the knowledge and skills you need without learning now. Yet, many people have difficulty giving up short-term benefits for bigger long-term gains. Psychologists refer to it as present bias (or hyperbolic discounting).

We are only just beginning to understand the implications of AI use when it comes to learning. I’m especially excited about the possibilities for personalizing education and increasing access. But I’m also concerned about the potential impact on students and their development in important areas such as critical thinking.

Researchers at MIT have been comparing the brain scans of humans engaged in essay writing over time. In one experiment, they divided participants into three different groups: those using their “brain only,” those using search engines, and those using Large Language Models (LLMs). Among their initial findings, “cognitive activity scaled down in relation to external tool use.” That is, users of generative AI showed less brain development than the others. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as AI-induced cognitive offloading.

Notice that the experiments are not about the quality of the essays, but the capacity to write better ones in the future. That’s the thing about education.

In management education, specifically, I worry that AI will become a substitute for learning the very skills that define good management. Management is difficult. Management problems are messy and require critical thinking. They are political, contextual, and they don’t often have clear right answers. In business schools, students need to practice diagnosing problems, weighing tradeoffs, understanding human motivations, and making difficult choices under uncertainty. Managers develop these skills by doing the work and exercising the brain—thinking, rethinking, failing, adjusting, and developing a feel for complexity.

Unbeknownst to them, students consistently using AI to generate answers without engaging in the real work are robbing their future selves of the skills they will need most. Just as a person who skips exercise for years may find themselves unfit when they most need strength and endurance, a student who skips over the challenging thinking work may find themselves unprepared when they must navigate a boardroom, lead a team, or face a crisis where there is no pre-written answer. Sure, AI may eventually do all these things for us. But for now, we need critical thinkers.

What can business professors do to help students learn the things that matter most? Cognitive offloading is not unavoidable in management education. I’m sure there are other approaches that work, but here are a few suggestions for encouraging AI use in ways that support critical thinking.

First, emphasize peer-to-peer interactive discussions and debates in class. It turns out that in the MIT experiments, the LLM users “also struggled to accurately quote their own work.” So, emphasizing real-time discussion can reduce the incentive to outsource thinking, since students must defend their reasoning in real time. That’s one reason why I believe cases should remain a fixture in management education. As case conversations enter unexpected territory, students must think on their feet to analyze data, uncover underlying assumptions, debate trade-offs, and connect theory to the specifics of the case.

Second, instructors can design assignments that require structured reflection before accessing AI or other digital aids. Students must articulate assumptions and frameworks in their own words. As in the case of real-time discussions, students are free to use AI, but not as a cognitive crutch. I’m interested in learning more about the approach described by Weinstein, Brotspies, and Gironda. They suggest more back-and-forth interactions between students and AI, first requiring students to diagnose issues without external help, then to compare their analysis with AI-generated insights to refine their understanding, and finally to critique AI’s responses.

Finally, educators can do more to inform students about the tradeoffs, emphasizing the long-term payoffs of exercising the mind. To me, it is simply about reinforcing the importance of continuing development to being an effective manager—to have and exercise good judgment, think creatively, and sort through complexities at the systems level. The idea is to instill in students a growth mindset and help them balance efficiency objectives with the time it takes for genuine skill development. A good manager is constantly learning and developing. In closing, I want to emphasize this last point more generally. Ultimately, I believe we must address the underlying mindsets about management education (and higher education more broadly) to reduce the risks of AI. We need to reinforce that it is more about the process of learning than degrees and entry-level jobs. Frankly, I have always believed that learning is not only a means to an end, but also an end to itself. Now, I think such a mindset will be especially important in an AI world.

Broadening Our View of Faculty in Business Schools

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

We’re going around the Zoom room, doing introductions, and I find myself smiling, feeling happy and proud. Part of the reason is where everyone is from: 12 faculty members from 11 different countries (and schools) across five continents. But that kind of international mix is the norm for GBSN. What stands out this time is something else. The group includes professors of practice and adjunct professors, as well as traditional academics, and one is a former executive finishing her doctorate. Most represent the usual business school disciplines, such as finance, marketing, operations, but a few have backgrounds you wouldn’t expect, like ecology and the arts. And what really struck me was how naturally everyone seemed to click. Titles didn’t matter. Each person brought something different, and each was treated with the same level of respect. I couldn’t help but wonder why something so beneficial somehow felt extraordinary.

I have always prioritized academics in my work with business schools globally. University-level degree-based management education should be grounded in credible research, with instructors who earned doctorates and engage continuously in scholarly activities. In academia, these scholarly activities can and should lead to peer-reviewed journal articles, and, for that to happen, scholars must often specialize and delve deep into their subjects. All that sounds good—and is good. But what surprises me is how often this view seems to be all that matters when it comes to faculty.

Institutions are rightfully quite intentional about hiring and deploying qualified academic scholars across the degree programs. However, the mix of other faculty tends to be determined more by existing connections and emerging opportunities. No matter how talented and integral, the people are often viewed as peripheral in terms of their role within the institution, contributions to overall objectives, and, especially, the culture shaping how various stakeholders work together.

Yet it is increasingly clear that the traditional business school faculty model, centered on tenure-track professors with deep expertise in increasingly narrowly defined fields, was built for a different era. Three trends are motivating schools to broaden their view of faculty.

First, technology is reshaping what business schools teach and how they teach it—and, thus, who teaches it. Advances in artificial intelligence, for example, are making content expertise less important relative to teaching and facilitation skills. New technologies also mean that instructors need to understand and use data analytics, digital platforms, and virtual collaboration tools. Today, many courses are co-designed with technologists, instructional designers, and industry experts. For example, to build its leadership position as a pioneer in tech-driven pedagogic innovation, GBSN member NEOMA Business School had to build a more collaborative model where professors work alongside educational designers, combining pedagogical expertise with technological advancements to enhance the student experience.

Second, the scope of business education has been expanding. Business schools are no longer just educating MBAs and undergraduates, they are delivering executive education, online certifications, entrepreneurship programs (including running incubators and accelerators), community clinics, public sector partnerships, and more. Each activity has different stakeholders, needs, and expectations. This larger, more diverse portfolio of programs requires a broader range of faculty—some strong in theory, others in application, some in research, others in delivery.

GBSN member University of Pretoria Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) is well known for its dynamic use of faculty from industry. Since its inception 25 years ago as a “business school for business,” GIBS has blended traditional scholars with senior executives who contribute to teaching, program design, and outreach, enabling the school to stay closely attuned to business realities in South Africa and beyond. Similarly, at Fundação Dom Cabral (FDC) in Brazil, another GBSN member, the faculty model is deliberately flexible. Their team includes research-active faculty, former CEOs, and sector-specific experts. This diversity enhances the school’s executive education programs and helps shape public-private partnerships aimed at economic inclusion.

Growth in entrepreneurship education and enterprise development has especially contributed to increasing faculty diversity. GBSN member Mediterranean School of Business (MSB) in Tunisia draws on regional practitioners to complement its core academic team. This strategy not only enriches classroom experiences with local context but strengthens the school’s ecosystem of innovation and entrepreneurship, crucial for developing economies. Entrepreneurs in residence are becoming as important on business school campuses as executives in residence once were.

Third, diversity in the faculty mix is being driven by increasing demand for societal impact. Climate change, inequality, political polarization, and geopolitical instability—today’s most urgent challenges don’t fit neatly into disciplinary boxes. Addressing them requires interdisciplinary thinking and faculty teams that blend theory with practice. A course on sustainable finance might now require a finance scholar, an environmental economist, and a policymaker—and, quite possibly nowadays, someone who knows tech. Few faculty members can credibly span all these domains. To focus research on environmental sustainability, the University of Exeter Business School, for example, had to connect across the institution to broaden their faculty portfolio.

In some areas, increasing societal impact means going beyond bringing together different disciplines. For example, the highly relevant research being conducted by the Centers for Business & Human Rights at New York University’s Stern School of Business and the University of Geneva often requires access to internal company practices, as well as affected workers and communities, necessitating transparent collaboration with business while maintaining academic independence. Human rights projects can require field work (including appropriate safety protections) and public policy involvement, so faculty with community engagement and public sector experience are invaluable, whether or not they hold doctorates or publish in academic journals.

At GBSN, our work to improve human rights education in business schools has benefited significantly from Charles Autheman, who works extensively with the International Labour Organization (ILO) and teaches at HEC Paris, another GBSN member, applying the school’s pioneering clinic format “Impact Company Lab” to human rights in business. His efforts to connect across business, academia, and civil society have created numerous opportunities for teaching and research across the GBSN community. We’ve also introduced an Ambassador Program to engage experienced professionals from the private sector for their insights and connections. Our first two Ambassadors are Matthew Kilgariff, Leader of the Governance & Sustainability Center at the Conference Board, and Ron Popper, Chief Executive Officer of the Global Business Initiative on Human Rights.

It’s not easy to make new faculty models work. Business schools need more than goodwill—they need strategies and systems to support more diverse faculty mixes. I’ll write more about these strategies in a future blog. For now, I’ll mention that these schools tend to be intentional about building teams, more inclusive in governance (e.g., giving professors of practice a say in curriculum development), and support professional development opportunities beyond traditional academic scholars and their discipline associations. Finally, and I am hearing this with greater frequency, business schools with more diverse faculties must be more purposeful about building cultures in which the contributions of different types of academic staff are appreciated. I want to conclude this blog with the words of Andrew Hoffman in The Engaged Scholar, which is about expanding the impact of academic research. “The goal of this book’s pages is not to change the role of academic scholars such that all must engage. Instead, the goal is to widen the range of definitions of what it means to be an academic scholar, allowing more diversity within the scholarly ranks.”

The Startups We Never See 

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

When Lina Ayenew left Ethiopia to pursue an MBA in China, she carried more than ambition—she had a vision. She selected Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business (CKGSB) to immerse herself in a place where education technology was revolutionizing how people learn, as well as to take advantage of the school’s in-class incubation program. Her experience at CKGSB crystallized the vision: mobile learning apps, built with local languages and curriculum in mind, could be a game-changer back home. Education for Ethiopia was born—a nonprofit that brings digital educational resources to young learners who need them most. 

Thousands of kilometers away, Rahul Jain, a budding entrepreneur, left Delhi to enroll at IESE Business School in Spain. He met Andreas Demleitner while doing an internship in South Africa, then moved to the Boston area for an exchange program with MIT Sloan School of Management and to work as a consultant in e-commerce and marketing. All of this laid the groundwork for Rahul and Andreas to co-found Peach Payments, which quickly became one of South Africa’s leading digital payment platforms and has been expanding across other African countries, such as Kenya and Mauritius. What began as a cross-cultural internship turned into a long-term commitment to unlocking financial inclusion across Africa.  

Similar stories can be found at almost every great business school around the world, especially those that are part of the Global Business School Network like CKGSB, IESE, and MIT Sloan. The stories are evidence of a societal force too often misunderstood or overlooked: international student mobility. 

For both Lina and Rahul, crossing borders wasn’t just about earning degrees—it was about gathering ideas, building global networks, and translating insights from one context to another. They are internationally mobile entrepreneurs who, by blending international exposure with local action, are creating scalable, inclusive solutions to some of the world’s biggest challenges. 

While I love hearing stories about founders like Lina and Rahul, they make me wonder about the startups we never see because of missed connections and experiences. The opportunity cost is undoubtedly large, but also largely invisible. For every student prevented from studying abroad due to visa restrictions, financial hurdles, or political rhetoric, there may be an app not launched, a social enterprise not formed, or a climate solution not scaled. These are the “unmade” innovations. They won’t be featured in glossy alumni magazines. Their absence quietly weakens our collective capacity to solve complex societal problems. 

My attention was drawn to this type of cost during the COVID-19 pandemic, when employees stayed home to work. My business friends, especially those working in the tech sector, worried less about productivity issues and more about erosion in the capacity to innovate in their companies. The types of relationships needed for the former model of work were already established and easy to maintain and support, while the types of relationships needed for the new situation (which cut across functions, organizations, industries, and borders) were less established and quicker to weaken.  

Meanwhile, my education friends were saying the same, as students deferred or canceled international study plans during the lockdowns. They worried about their collective capacity to foster innovation and serve business with less international diversity. 

Despite the benefits, persistent fear looms in public discourse about international mobility: that, for example, immigrants, including international students, are more likely to take jobs than to create them. This belief, while politically potent, doesn’t align with the facts. In the United States, for instance, immigrants have founded over 50% of the country’s unicorns—privately held start-ups valued at $1 billion or more. In the UK, 39% of the fastest-growing companies have at least one immigrant co-founder. 

Rahul Jain’s Peach Payments is a useful example. Rather than taking jobs from South Africans, he and Andreas have created many more. The impact extends far beyond payroll. His company helps thousands of small and medium-sized businesses across Africa to participate in the digital economy, opening doors to trade, capital, and growth. Similarly, Lina Ayenew’s nonprofit not only improves literacy in Ethiopia but also serves as a model for culturally responsive edtech innovation. 

Some governments have embraced foreign founders. Japan, though historically closed, opened its doors to international students who want to start businesses in the country. Their Startup Visa allows foreign students to reside in Japan while preparing to launch their business, offering a transitional period before converting to a permanent Business Manager visa. Supported by the French government’s #ChooseFrance campaign, French schools have been fast-tracking visas for students who had places in U.S. schools but are now uncertain about whether they’ll be let in. 

There are many challenges to address to realize our full potential globally. For many talented aspiring entrepreneurs, the financial cost of gaining international experience remains out of reach. Visa regimes in some countries discourage students from staying and applying their skills post-graduation. Even when they do stay, accessing funding as a foreign founder can be fraught with bias and legal complexity. And for those who return home, re-entry can mean facing relatively underdeveloped startup ecosystems, rigid bureaucracies, or outdated policies.  

In business education, we should be proactive in trying to remove these obstacles and prevent countries from backsliding on mobility. Given the potential benefits, business schools, governments, and civil society organizations should work together to encourage and support international mobility to build businesses and create jobs. They can protect the institutions that facilitate exchange, create special landing zones for students returning home, expand access to incubators and mentorship programs, build regional investment funds, and promote regulatory reforms that smooth the path from idea to market entry.  

When you trace the story of most great innovations, you’ll often find a border crossed—geographic, intellectual, or both. The most creative solutions emerge at the intersection of different perspectives. And if we want to empower the next generation of innovators, we need to protect and expand the mobility that allows them to learn and connect across boundaries. 

ChatGPT was used as a tool by the author to brainstorm and shape key points. Any errors that remain are the sole responsibility of the author. 

The Tragedy of the Commonsense Morality

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

And What We Can Do About It

Writing about the climate challenge, French economist Jean Tirole frames the problem brilliantly: “The benefits of reducing climate change remain global and distant in time, while the costs of that reduction are local and immediate.” (Economics for the Common Good, p. 199) Why would any country take costly steps to attenuate global warming, when almost all the benefits go to other countries? Many of us see it the same way, as an example of the “Tragedy of Commons” or, more generally, a free rider problem.

If we know what the problem is, we ought to be able to solve it, right? Political scientist, Elinor Ostrom, has demonstrated how different combinations of incentives and sanctions have been used to effectively address the commons problem in small, stable communities. (Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action) Unfortunately, these strategies don’t apply to a planet of 8.2 billion people across nearly 200 countries.

To understand the problem differently, I often turn from economics and go back more than a decade to book written by philosopher turned psychologist, Joshua Greene, who takes a different approach and introduces the “Tragedy of Commonsense Morality.” (See Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them)

Greene starts with the tragedy of the commons and argues, not unlike Ostrom does for institutions, that our moral instincts evolved to help us cooperate within small, close-knit groups (tribes). Morality, he wrote, “is a set of psychological adaptations that allow otherwise selfish individuals to reap the benefits of cooperation.” It helps us to address the “Me” vs “Us” problem and helped early humans to survive. Along with a host of other factors (such as our tendency to maintain local ties even within a larger society), our moral instincts made it possible for societies to expand.

The point, according to Greene, is that (like biological traits) our moral beliefs adapt over time—shaped by the environment or context. What works/evolves to promote cooperation in one community does not necessarily work/evolve in another. The tragedy of the commonsense morality occurs here, in the larger setting within which different solutions intersect. “Me” vs “Us” problems become “Us” vs “Them” problems. Once we have locked into tightly reasoned moralities, they become more “automatic,” acquire real moral weight, and begin to resemble “rights.” That is one reason why we are often surprised by the intensity with which individuals know others are wrong.

Why does any of this matter? Going back to where we started, humanity faces a growing number of global challenges that cannot be solved by individual nations (or groups within them) acting alone. Climate change, global health, and economic inequality are just a few examples of problems that require cooperation across borders, cultures, and ideologies. Yet, as Greene argues, our moral instincts often prioritize the needs of our immediate group over those of others, especially more distant others. (Frankly, even basic economic opportunities, such as trade based on comparative advantage, also depend on cooperative solutions that elude us at the moment.) Solutions will require us to switch from “automatic” mode to “manual” mode (System 1 and System 2 in Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow) and consider a “metamorality,” which I won’t expand on here.

Of course, there are many factors at work which make finding solutions challenging. Take social media platforms, for example. Because we tend to interact longer with content aligned with our beliefs (think confirmation bias) and because advertising income depends on attention, algorithms are built to serve us more information consistent with our pre-existing beliefs—causing the platforms to act as digital echo chambers, where people primarily interact with others who share their views and values.

What can we do about the tragedy of the commonsense morality? Honestly, I don’t know how the solve the problem. Nobody seems to know (there is considerable debate about the philosophical way out outlined by Greene), and that is a source of great stress for many people. For now, however, I want to share a few thoughts about what we can do as individuals, managers, and educators.

Each of us are citizens of a country and world, as well as various communities. Individuals and organizations have responsibilities that go beyond their local or national communities, beyond political parties and other segments, and must begin to think about themselves as part of a broader interconnected world. Of course, doing that is more difficult than it might initially seem, especially since some of the biggest differences and most passionate stances are about questions related to immigration and inclusion. How do we widen the circle of “Us” when the whole point of some people is to limit the size and diversity of their groups?

One straightforward strategy I always recommend is to collect information not only from multiple sources, but also from diverse ones. It is time consuming, but it helps us to gain a fuller picture, reduce bias, and improve objectivity and decision-making. And it enhances empathy and social awareness. In the old days, I made a habit of reading about the same topics in both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Nowadays, I often use AI to compare across many different outlets leaning left and right, identify biases and gaps, and summarize divergent content into more holistic narratives.

About climate, for example, I can see a common core emerging, that the scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and is largely driven by human activity, while contrasting narratives are about interpreting the policy implications, rather than the underlying data. Sure, I have a stance—the urgency to act is critical—but I also understand the economic and practical challenges of transition cannot be ignored, especially considering differences across economies at different stages of development. Indeed, I like to utilize regional and language filters to retrieve more local views on global issues.

Besides working on ourselves, as managers and educators, we can multiply our efforts by also helping others to think more broadly and across groups. We can encourage them to use diverse sources like we do. We can work harder to develop cross-cultural appreciation and agility in our colleagues and students, and not shy away from the complexities of global challenges. We can take on moral disagreements, as well as business and economic ones, in the workplace and classroom. We can encourage colleagues to think beyond individuals, organizations, and markets to consider how the political, economic, and environmental parts of the systems interact.

It is not only about the content but also about the pedagogy. I believe the best way to truly be exposed to and embrace different perspectives is through experience. Put your students into simulations, role-plays, and real-world project teams that force them to confront the most difficult issues and work together across borders, disciplines, and sectors to solve problems. Because diversity matters to innovation and learning, we’re excited at GBSN about our new Global Business Student Changemaker program in partnership with How to Change the World.

The tragedy of commonsense morality is a fundamental challenge in today’s interconnected world in which our (tribal) instincts clash with the need for broader cooperation. The tensions will only get stronger, but we can each do our part as global citizens, managers, and educators. Together our challenge is to bridge the gap between “us” and “them,” as well as “me” and “us.” Management education has a crucial role to play in developing the next generation of leaders who can navigate moral complexities and work toward a more cooperative, sustainable future.

What Does Winning Look Like Today?

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

When I was an economics professor (which was a long time ago), I often invited students in introductory classes to play a simple game. They were instructed to choose “Heads” or “Tails” and secretly write their choice on a sticky note, while I randomly sorted the class into pairs. If the choices made by any pair of students turn out to be the same (i.e., Heads/Heads or Tails/Tails), according to the rules, I would give them both chocolate bars. Otherwise, they would receive nothing.

What would you choose?

After playing things out and recording the results, I worked with the class to model the game using a simple 2×2 payoff matrix (see below). Then we talked about what happened.

I recall getting a lot of mileage out of this simple exercise. We frequently talked about the inadequacies of our model. For example, it fails to predict the outcome or recommend a particular strategy to players. Both Heads/Heads and Tails/Tails are (pure strategy) equilibria and neither is superior (the payoffs are the same). The point is that Tails/Tails is just as good as Heads/Heads.

Yet, over time, nearly all my students chose Heads. And I gave away a lot of candy! It’s reasonable to ask why economists have a difficult time explaining such a simple and obvious outcome. In advanced classes, we turned to repeated games and refinements to our definition of equilibrium.

For our class, however, the observation most often led to a discussion about the importance of norms, conventions, standards, and rules (e.g., driving on the right side of the road in the U.S.) in generating better results (e.g., not crashing into each other). We talked about the importance of information and communication, and how uninteresting the game would be if choices were made sequentially, with perfect information about the choices already made.

Besides being an easy and fun discussion starter, I was anxious to include the exercise for another reason, which was to show students that in business and life, one person’s gain does not have to mean another’s loss, as so many of our models seem to suggest. I noted that by then, we considered zero-sum games, as well as prisoner’s dilemma type games and more standard models of oligopoly. Look, I would explain, it’s still about winning the game and maximizing your payoff, but the winning strategy and behavior can be very different depending on the rules of the game. Coordination games, like the one we played, gave students a fresh way to think about business.

I have been thinking about the differences a lot lately, especially in a world that seems to be getting more complex and unpredictable. Where it is getting harder to distinguish friends from enemies and to stress long-term needs as well as short-term interests. In recent months it seems politics and economics are colliding to make underlying assumptions less universal. It’s getting harder to tell what winning looks like.

But it is also a world in which “coordination” and generating mutual benefit by aligning strategies is more relevant than ever. The digitalization of the economy, globalization of value chains, and expansion of platform-based business models have created environments where the payoffs for businesses are more interdependent. Success in these markets often depends on aligning actions with others, including competitors and consumers, as well as collaborators. Take technology standards, for example. The adoption of a common protocol benefits all firms that follow it, as it enhances interoperability and customer satisfaction.

The world economy is more interconnected than ever. Businesses, even small ones, no longer operate in isolated markets but as part of vast networks that span across geographies and sectors. Coordination across these networks can lead to collective gains. For instance, multinational corporations need to cooperate with local partners, governments, and other stakeholders to enter new markets and create value—and to increase visibility into their value chains.

A big motivator for me, and the work we do at GBSN, is that coordination, as well as competition, paves the way to more inclusive and sustainable growth. Transformation requires systems-level thinking and platforms that facilitate collaboration across sectors, as well as within industries. My favorite chapter in a book titled Net Positive is called “It Takes Three to Tango.” In it, Paul Polman (former Unilever CEO) describes the need for governments, the private sector, and civil society to “dance a complicated tango.” Businesses, consumers, and society can all benefit over the long term from pre-competitive standards and coordinated action to reduce environmental impact.

Yes, it’s getting more complicated and difficult. As I explained to my students, it’s not only about winning but also the implications of winning for society—the planet and its people. It’s not only about the present, but also about the future. And, as I tried to demonstrate using the simple game, enabling mutually beneficial solutions is not only about strategy and competition, but also about shared mindsets.

Business schools can play an important role. We can transform people and mindsets, convene leaders across sectors and borders, and create new insights that illuminate the path forward. We can continue to build platforms that bring together different people from different places to create shared experiences that enhance future cooperation—and provide learners across generations with the knowledge skills to build industry-wide frameworks and public-private partnerships to establish common goals and frameworks, as well as transform their companies. Most fundamentally, we can each take steps to reduce zero-sum, short-term thinking in favor of win-win-win, long-term thinking in our classrooms.

The Future of Globalization May be Uncertain. The Need for Innovation is Not

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

Over the past few decades, globalization—the closer integration of countries and peoples—has been a powerful engine of economic growth, improving global health and lifting millions out of poverty, as well as increasing efficiency. Expanding cross-border collaborations and knowledge exchanges have empowered countries to address critical societal issues.

However, globalization has also been blamed for widening income inequality within and between countries, weakening communities, and fueling social and economic discontent. Some people connect environmental degradation and climate change at least partially to the rise of global supply chains and the increasing mobility of people. Dissatisfaction with globalization opened the door to nationalism, trade wars, and geopolitical tensions between major powers, contributing to the fragmentation of global cooperation. Many countries have been reconsidering their roles in the world economy, prioritizing domestic interests over international cooperation. While the world is more connected than ever and globalization remains a powerful force, what will happen next is unclear.

Like other organizations, business schools will be affected in myriad ways by the changing global landscape. The path of globalization shapes what business schools teach and the way they organize to teach it. It impacts the distribution of internationally mobile students, markets for executive education, faculty hiring, research collaborations, financial models, and more. Navigating the uncertainty and changing environment will require schools to be agile, entrepreneurial, and resilient.

Now, while the future of globalization may be uncertain, the need for innovation is not. As technological advancements, climate change, and social inequality continue to shape the global landscape, innovation will be crucial to addressing relevant challenges. In this period of increasing uncertainty, I encourage business schools to continue channeling energy and resources towards innovation.

We know that innovation thrives when ideas and talent flow freely across borders, enabling communities and organizations to leverage diverse perspectives, skills, and resources of people around the world. By capitalizing on globalization, business schools have equipped students with the skills and mindsets needed to collaborate across borders, generated useful research, and strengthened connections between industries and communities. But what happens if international mobility shrinks, and the world economy becomes more fragmented?

What can business schools do to maintain and grow their impact on innovation even while the future of globalization is uncertain, and potentially in retreat? I offer three suggestions, which taken together offer new perspectives on the role organizations like GBSN.

First, business schools are of course engaged locally as well as globally. They catalyze innovation by fostering local entrepreneurship that meets the specific needs of their communities. With international mobility shrinking, business schools can increase their focus on building strong local networks that connect students, faculty, and businesses. Through incubators, accelerator programs, and partnerships with local industries, schools support entrepreneurs in developing innovative solutions tailored to local challenges, such as healthcare, sustainability, and education. By empowering local talent, business schools help build resilient economies that are less dependent on global markets.

Second, even in a fragmented global economy, business schools still play a key role in bridging the gap between private enterprises, governments, and civil society organizations. By creating platforms for collaboration between these sectors, schools can drive innovation in areas that require collective action, such as environmental sustainability, digital transformation, and social equity. Schools can facilitate dialogue, joint research projects, and problem-solving initiatives that bring together diverse stakeholders, encouraging the development of innovative solutions that can address complex, multi-dimensional challenges at the local level.

Third, even as international mobility shrinks, business schools can use digital tools to maintain global collaboration and knowledge exchange. By adopting online learning platforms, virtual exchange programs, and remote research partnerships, business schools can continue to connect with global experts and thought leaders. This approach allows schools to sustain a global perspective, despite geographic constraints, while also enabling students and faculty to access international insights and innovative practices that can be adapted to local contexts. Leveraging digital connectivity ensures that schools remain a catalyst for innovation even in a more fragmented world.

Taken together, the three strategies offer new perspectives on the role of organizations like the Global Business School Network (GBSN). Perhaps counterintuitively, the focus on innovation even as globalization retreats makes our work more important rather than less. Organizations like GBSN build bridges between local entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystems, helping them to share knowledge that can accelerate progress. GBSN cultivates important partnerships across sectors at an international level. For example, collaborations with the International Labor Organization (ILO) and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have contributed vital teaching resources for local contexts. Finally, through programs such as the Africa Business Concept Challenge, GoTrade Fellowship Program with DHL, new Global Business Student Changemakers, and a range of faculty impact communities and development activities, GBSN provides the infrastructure and support to virtual connections across schools.

By strengthening their focus on local innovation systems, building multi-sectoral partnerships, and supporting virtual programs, while participating in global networks and maintaining robust international collaborations, business schools can continue to thrive and make a positive impact and a complex, ever-changing world.

Finding Truth in an AI World: The Power of Human Connection

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

In the car, halfway to school, my son lifted his eyes from the phone long enough to say, “Did you know, in Japan, workers who get to the office early park farther away, leaving the closer spots for others that come later?” I didn’t know. And, because I’m never quite sure where my son gets his content, my first question was, “Is it true?” We arrived at school just after settling on an answer.

Later in the day, reflecting on the experience, I felt that I missed an opportunity. A better conversation would have started with a different question, such as, “Why is this interesting to you?” Or, “Do you think such a practice could have evolved in the United States?” Maybe, “How might this behavior benefit companies?” I could go on. It’s not that the truth no longer mattered to me, it just should have been less urgent than the opportunity to connect with and explore an interesting concept with my son.

In the first act of The Importance of Being Earnest, Oscar Wilde wrote, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” That was in 1895. Today, his assertion seems more relevant than ever. Misinformation, whether deliberate or unintentional, has always been part of the human experience. But technology (and the business models associated with many of them) has introduced a new level of complexity. AI, for example, can be used by humans to generate deepfakes and fabricate convincing yet false news stories, while social media platforms (powered by big data and commercial-driven algorithms) spread these stories at lightning speed.

Fabrications no longer serve only people, some AI systems have already learned to deceive humans, creating false beliefs to achieve outcomes other than the truth. That reminds me of another quote, which has been (falsely?!) attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche, “I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.” We have muddied the waters of reality and that has significantly diminished trust.

Of course, technology also offers a potential solution. As much as big tech has contributed to the spread of misinformation, it also offers powerful tools to fight it. AI systems are being developed to identify false content, fact-check in real time, and alert users when they encounter potentially misleading information. Let the robot truth wars begin!

More importantly, and this is the main point of my holiday message, the need to address misinformation reminds us of the value of human connection. In a world where fake news and AI-generated falsehoods spread so easily, I believe the importance of meaningful, face-to-face interactions is elevated. This season, as we gather with family and friends, it’s a reminder to cherish the conversations and shared experiences that ground us in reality and build trust, keeping us connected to what truly matters.

Try to take advantage of opportunities like the one I missed with my son. To be clear, I’m not only encouraging more conversations, but also better ones. The fact is that many of us enter conversations more to assert our own opinions, establish authority, and get our way, rather than to explore ideas and different perspectives, build relationships, and move towards the truth. We are, after all, only human, with all the associated deep-seated psychological needs and cognitive biases.

The answer to misinformation is not just more advanced AI tools (and tighter regulations), it is our human capacities for empathy, critical thinking, and open dialogue. It is up to us to build environments in which meaningful conversations can thrive; to cultivate cultures where we question and discuss, and yes, seek out reliable information, especially when we are flooded with content. The truth may be elusive and will never be simple, but that doesn’t have to slow human progress. Let’s celebrate the season by recommitting ourselves to talking about the things that matter, equipped with human wisdom—as well as the best AI tools at our disposal.

ChatGPT was used as a tool by the author to brainstorm and shape key points. Any errors that remain are the sole responsibility of the author.

Is More Information Better?

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

It is a good idea to collect data about the outcomes of heart surgeries and make it available to the public. Report cards help patients find the best hospitals and doctors, while the providers have an incentive to improve quality. Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it.

Well, in a paper I read a little more than 20 years ago, the authors found that publicly available cardiac surgery report cards “led to higher levels of resource use and to worse health outcomes, particularly for sicker patients.” They concluded, “at least in the short run, these report cards decreased patient and social welfare.” The report cards motivated providers to select against treating the sickest patients, who are more likely to have poor outcomes. The model is more intricate, but that’s the basic idea.

At the time, my interest in the article, and others like it, was not only because of my continuing curiosity about economics but also because by then I was working at AACSB, initiating efforts to collect and share data for benchmarking. I’ve been thinking about the article and its provocative title “Is More Information Better?” and am writing this short piece to share some notes about metrics and management education.

The report card article first returned to my mind when I started watching a television series called “The Resident” on Netflix. In the show, set in the U.S., a hospital CEO is single-mindedly focused on the bottom line (he previously worked in private equity), while the protagonists, doctors, and nurses on the hospital staff, fight to prioritize patient health. What I like about the show is that it doesn’t gloss over the issues. There are real tradeoffs, and the series puts them front and center. It makes for great television and illustrates just how difficult it is to manage a hospital—and how challenging our job is in business schools.

It’s getting more challenging. How do we prepare students for a more complicated business world in which short-term profitability (rightfully) isn’t the only important objective? Hasn’t it been hard enough under the dominant view that the sole responsibility of business to make as much money as possible (“subject to the basic rules of society”)? We must rethink management education to foster real business model changes that advance the role of business in promoting societal well-being. Increasingly, consumers, investors, and employees expect it.

But we are not there yet. It is fair to say we have a handle on financial metrics and have made some progress on environmental ones, but we need to think more clearly about how to measure our social impact. Researchers at the NYU Stern Center for Business & Human Rights examined 12 socially oriented measurement frameworks and found 1,753 different indicators between them. Only eight percent of the indicators addressed the effects of company practices. The other 92 percent measured “company efforts and activities, such as issuing policies or commitments; conducting audits, risk assessments, or training; participating in membership organizations or other collaborations; or engaging stakeholders,” and are not likely to be helpful to investors or consumers, much less managers, in trying to move the needle on social responsibility. This is where business school research can be especially helpful, but are the incentives aligned?

The cardiac report card study was conducted by economists working in business schools (at Northwestern and Stanford) and was eventually published in Journal of Political Economy which has an impact factor of 6.9, making it one of the top journals in
economics. According to Google Scholar, it has been cited 980 times, making it highly influential in the academic field.

The article also carries a high Altmetric Attention score, in the top 98 percent of articles the same age, indicating a higher probability that it influenced policy and practice. Such broader measurements have been enabled by digitization but are not yet highly valued in academic settings. In line with our report card theme, it would be interesting to consider the kinds of changes that can be motivated by metrics that consider readership and utilization across a wider range of audiences, which could include more interdisciplinary and international collaborations, stronger engagement with practitioners and policymakers, new faculty models, and improved channels for communicating. All good things as far as I’m concerned.

Beyond research, it is important to continuously consider the way we assess and report on business schools and universities. While they are changing, rankings, for example, are still dominated by metrics like graduate salaries, acceptance rates, and publications in top journals. These metrics can motivate schools to prioritize selectivity over access and inclusive education and focus on higher-paying industries rather than cultivate social entrepreneurship, build leaders for non-profits, and address global challenges like inequality and sustainability. To align education to the needs of society moving forward, and to help business schools accelerate the transformation of business, we must develop and embrace broader metrics that reward societal impact and long-term contributions to the development needs of society. This is especially important for the work of GBSN.

There is much more to consider, but we will have to look to future blog posts to fully explore the changing metrics shaping business and business education. I’m especially interested in considering the impact of AI and policies related to confidentiality and privacy of data.

From Curriculum to Community: Expanding the Influence of Business Schools

Posted on by Jennifer Deschain

“You can’t stop technological change, but you can shape it.” That is the key message of Power and Progress according to its authors, Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson. After researching 1,000 years of technological change, the authors conclude that, contrary to widespread “techno-optimism,” advances in technology do not automatically translate into broad-based prosperity. If we want technology to benefit all of us rather than just some of us, we can and must take charge of our future.

This week, Acemoglu and Johnson, both MIT scholars, and University of Chicago political scientist James Robinson, were awarded the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Their body of research shows that the prosperity of nations is not primarily driven by geography or culture, but by the quality of its institutions, which are essentially the political and economic rules created and enforced by the state and its people. Their work shows that institutions encouraging participation, innovation, and equal opportunity are more conducive to long-term growth and societal benefit. On the other hand, institutions that concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few ultimately hinder growth and development.

The point of this short blog, however, is not to share their extensive body of work. Instead, my objective is to share what I think it tells us about the role of business schools in society—that we can and should take a more active role in shaping economic and political institutions.

It is natural for business school leaders to focus on reacting to changes in the business environment. After all, any single business school is just a tiny part of a large global industry, and there is so much pressure to perform from a wide range of stakeholders, each with different expectations and narrow range of metrics. It’s difficult enough to produce employable graduates and insights that fit the needs of businesses striving to succeed in the current system. All of this is getting harder in an increasingly dynamic world.

But I believe business schools also have a responsibility to help change the system. Instead of reacting to changes in the environment, we need business schools to recognize and leverage their power to influence it, especially at the local level. By adopting a more proactive approach, I believe business schools can make a meaningful contribution in shaping the development of new institutional frameworks that are more inclusive, sustainable, and ultimately beneficial for society. While this might seem like a big undertaking, I think it is easy to get started. Let’s consider opportunities in three areas of business school activities: curriculum, research, and outreach.

First, in addition to current efforts to rethink what we teach, I encourage schools to spend more time considering how it is taught. Content is essential and needs to be informed by a more responsible view of business in society. It should also do more to integrate economics, politics, science, and law. Finally, it must also prize ethics, transparency, and respect for human rights.

But pedagogy can be just as important, especially if impact is an objective. Take experiential education, for example. It is not only about applying concepts and making connections but also about contributing to organizations and society. I have been thrilled to see more schools go beyond narrowly defined private sector problems in sourcing internships and projects. I also see more efforts to build international diversity and multiple perspectives into teams to stimulate innovation. Experiential learning and international and interdisciplinary approaches are big parts of GBSN’s vision. We offer students opportunities to do work that matters for international development.

Second, despite some progress, business schools are still limiting themselves when it comes to research. Peer-reviewed journals play a vital role in academia as a mechanism to support quality and credibility. But by focusing our policies on increasing the number of publications, schools are missing opportunities to foster meaningful change in society. To me, the best way to increase impact is by strengthening faculty engagement, not only with private sector business but also with government and civil society. Then, this connective tissue enables research to be put into action. After all, impact is less about who and how many people read what is published than how it leads to meaningful, beneficial change for society.

Third, it is helpful to emphasize the outreach activities of business schools. These include efforts to engage in local organizations and communities. Many business schools are involved with efforts to develop economically distressed areas in their home cities, for example. But outreach also includes the international relationships business schools build with other schools, as well as organizations in other sectors. The mix of community engagement and international relationships gets at the heart of GBSN. We believe schools can make a bigger difference in local development with help from an international network. We share, learn, and innovate—we do things together that we can’t do alone. For example, GBSN has developed a portfolio of international challenges and experiences for students, which would have been impossible for a single school to build.

These initial thoughts are just the beginning. As Acemoglu and Johnson explain, they wrote Power and Progress “to show that progress is never automatic.” Ultimately, I believe business schools have the power to forge a new and better world in which business thrives in a way that benefits the broader population, not just a small part of it. But this won’t happen unless we are proactive in developing and asserting our capacity—individually and collectively—to shape the future of significant economic and political institutions.

A Whakatauki for the World

Posted on by gbsn

“Nāu te rourou, nāku te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi” is a Māori proverb, or whakatauki. It translates into “with your food basket and my food basket the people will thrive” and carries my humble holiday message to the GBSN community. 

To be sure, I’m not an expert on Māori, People of the Land of Aotearoa New Zealand. I was, however, fortunate to have an opportunity to learn about their history and culture during a family trip to New Zealand in 2018. In my opinion, there is no substitute for being there when it comes to learning about a place and its people. Too often, we think we understand a country based on what we read or watch, only to discover important differences or nuances through direct experience.

At that time of my family visit, the world was getting to know Māori through the haka, as performed prior to rugby matches by New Zealand’s national team, the All Blacks. It’s easy to interpret the dance narrowly, as preparation for battle—unifying the team, getting them mentally and physically ready, and intimidating opponents. However, we learned that the haka is also used to lay a foundation for peace between tribes. And, although many think haka may be performed only by men, there are many versions that can be performed by anyone and some that are performed only by women.

It might be easy to think of Māori as warlike, but so much of their culture is built on collaboration, across tribes as well as within them. “Mā pango mā whero ka oti te mahi,” which translates into “with red and black the world will be complete,” emphasizes the importance of the community (“pango”) and chiefs (“whero”) working together. Kotahitanga, the Māori word for unity or oneness, describes movements to unify Māori on a non-tribal basis. More broadly, it applies to collective action for greater impact.

Cooperation and collective action are important to the GBSN community. To me, however, our whakatauki, “nāu te rourou, nāku te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi,” goes beyond, because it is not necessarily grounded in “oneness” and does not require that we are similar or share the same objective. Instead, it is based on the reality that each person or party brings different strengths to the table, and that is essential for GBSN to make a positive impact. We are not built on the idea that business schools are or should be the same—business education is not a monolith. Each school operates in a different context and brings distinctive strengths to our efforts to foster inclusive and sustainable development.

So, there is more to my holiday offering than might initially be apparent. Of course, it is about the importance of collaboration, one of our core values, but it also expresses our commitment to context and commerce—to empowerment and trade. If you agree, please join me in sharing this important Māori message during the holiday season.

Dan LeClair, CEO

Dan LeClair was named CEO of the Global Business School Network (GBSN) in February of 2019. Prior to GBSN, Dan was an Executive Vice President at AACSB International, an association and accrediting organization that serves some 1,600 business schools in more than 100 countries. His experience at AACSB includes two and half years as Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer, seven years as Chief Operating Officer, and five years as Chief Knowledge Officer. A founding member of the Responsible Research in Business and Management (RRBM) initiative, Dan currently participates on its working board. He also serves in an advisory capacity to several organizations and startups in business and higher education. Before AACSB, Dan was a tenured associate professor and associate dean at The University of Tampa.

Dan played a lead role in creating a think-tank joint venture between the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) and AACSB and has been recognized for pioneering efforts in the formation of the UN’s Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), where he served on the Steering Committee for many years. Dan has also participated in industry-level task forces for a wide range of organizations, including the Chartered Association of Business Schools, Graduate Management Admission Council, Executive MBA Council, and Aspen Institute’s Business and Society Program.

Widely recognized as a thought leader in management education, Dan is the author of over 80 research reports, articles, and blogs, and has delivered more than 170 presentations in 30 countries. As a lead spokesperson for reform and innovation in management education, Dan has been frequently cited in a wide range of US and international newspapers, magazines, and professional publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times, China Daily, Forbes, Fast Company, and The Economist. Dan earned a PhD from the University of Florida writing on game theory.

>