This essay explores the nuanced impact of generative AI technologies on management and business education, framed through three paradoxes: the Expertise Paradox suggests that AI’s adequate performance at lower-level tasks may weaken students’ development of higher-level thinking; the Innovation Paradox states that AI’s creativity aid could stifle original thinking; and the Equity Paradox highlights AI’s potential to provide immense gains to experts but disproportionately harm novices. We take the position that without “sensible” AI use guidelines in management education, AI is likely to have a net-negative effect on learning. This stance is based on our trials with ChatGPT on various cognitive tasks organized around the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning. We identify areas where AI tools can enhance learning, such as comprehending established subject domains, as well as areas where they exhibit significant limitations, such as logical reasoning and critical thinking. We caution against the potential deskilling in critical thinking due to students’ overreliance on AI for basic tasks. To alleviate these challenges, we recommend sensible AI uses by students that support skill development without fostering overreliance. We also suggest how faculty, administrators, and employers may support students in getting the most out of this new tool.
AcarO. A.van den EndeJ. (2016). Knowledge distance, cognitive-search processes, and creativity: The making of winning solutions in science contests. Psychological Science, 27(5), 692–699.
2.
AndersonL. W.KrathwohlD. R.AirasianP. W.CruikshankK. A.MayerR. E.PintrichP. R.RathsJ.WittrockM. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
3.
AthanassiouN.McNettJ. M.HarveyC. (2003). Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom’s taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal of Management Education, 27(5), 533–555.
4.
BagleyC. E.SulkowskiA. J.NelsonJ. S.WaddockS.ShrivastavaP. (2019). A path to developing more insightful business school graduates: A systems-based, experimental approach to integrating law, strategy, and sustainability. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19(4), 541–568. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2018.0036
5.
BeckerG. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.
6.
BevanD.KipkaC. (2012). Experiential learning and management education. Journal of Management Development, 31(3), 193–197.
7.
BloomB. S.EngelhartM. D.FurstE.HillW. H.KrathwohlD. R. (1956). Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay.
8.
BondF. W.HayesS. C.Barnes-HolmesD. (2006). Psychological flexibility, ACT, and organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 26(1–2), 25–54.
9.
BoschG. (2018). Train PhD students to be thinkers not just specialists. Nature, 554, 277.
10.
BrynjolfssonE.LiD.RaymondL. R. (2023). Generative AI at work. NBER.
11.
BubeckS.ChandrasekaranV.EldanR.GehrkeJ.HorvitzE.KamarE.LeeP.LeeY. T.LiY.LundbergS. (2023). Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712.
12.
CarnevaleA. P.SchmidtP.StrohlJ. (2020). The merit myth: How our colleges favor the rich and divide America. The New Press.
CohenW. M.LevinthalD. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
20.
CottonD. R.CottonP. A.ShipwayJ. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61, 228–239.
21.
DietrichA. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1011–1026. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196731
22.
DietrichA.KansoR. (2010). A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019749
FeltenE.RajM.SeamansR. (2021). Occupational, industry, and geographic exposure to artificial intelligence: A novel dataset and its potential uses. Strategic Management Journal, 42(12), 2195–2217.
25.
FinkL. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. John Wiley & Sons.
GaribayO. O.WinslowB.AndolinaS.AntonaM.BodenschatzA.CoursarisC.FalcoG.FioreS. M.GaribayI.GriemanK.HavensJ. C.JirotkaM.KacorriH.KarwowskiW.KiderJ.KonstanJ.KoonS.Lopez-GonzalezM.Maifeld-CarucciI., . . . XuW. (2023). Six human-centered artificial intelligence grand challenges. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(3), 391–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2153320
28.
GeerlingW.MateerG. D.WootenJ.DamodaranN. (2023). Is ChatGPT smarter than a student in principles of economics?SSRN Electronic Journal.
29.
GhoshalS. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–92.
30.
HaavoldP. Ø.SriramanB. (2022). Creativity in problem solving: Integrating two different views of insight. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 54(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01304-8
HillmannJ.DuchekS.MeyrJ.GuentherE. (2018). Educating future managers for developing resilient organizations: The role of scenario planning. Journal of Management Education, 42(4), 461–495.
33.
KahnemanD. (2017). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
34.
KolbA. Y.KolbD. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning & education, 4(2), 193–212.
35.
KolbD. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
LeH.SchmidtF. L.HarterJ. K.LauverK. J. (2010). The problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 112–125.
38.
LeaverT.SrdarovS. (2023). ChatGPT isn’t magic: The hype and hypocrisy of generative artificial intelligence (AI) rhetoric. M/C Journal, 26(5), 5. https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.3004
39.
LebovitzS.Lifshitz-AssafH.LevinaN. (2023). The no. 1 question to ask when evaluating AI tools. MIT Sloan Management Review, 64(3), 27–30.
40.
LewisH. (2006). Excellence without a soul: How a great university forgot education. Publication Affairs U.S.
41.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (2019). The development of goal setting theory: A half century retrospective. Motivation Science, 5(2), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000127
42.
LovelaceK. J.EggersF.DyckL. R. (2016). I do and I understand: Assessing the utility of web-based management simulations to develop critical thinking skills. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(1), 100–121.
43.
Lund DeanK.FornaciariC.BentoR.AsartaC. (2020). Premises, promises, and perils of the Academic Potemkin Village. Management Learning, 51(4), 491–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507620903171
PolanyiM. (1966). The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press.
52.
ReevesM. F. (1990). An application of Bloom’s taxonomy to the teaching of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 609–616.
53.
RocheB.Barnes-HolmesY.Barnes-HolmesD.StewartI.O’HoraD. (2002). Relational frame theory: A new paradigm for the analysis of social behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 75–91.
SchwandtD. R. (2005). When managers become philosophers: Integrating learning with sensemaking. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 176–192. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.17268565
57.
ShenW.LuoJ.LiuC.YuanY. (2013). New advances in the neural correlates of insight: A decade in review of the insightful brain. Chinese Science Bulletin, 58(13), 1497–1511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-012-5565-5
HintonG.BengioY.HassabisD.AltmanS.AmodeiD.SongD.LieuT.GatesB.ZhangY.SutskeverI.BabuschkinI.LeggS.HellmanM.ManyikaJ.ZengY.ZhanX.EfimovA.GraylinA. W.ZhangJ.Statement on AI Risk—Open Letter. (n.d.). https://www.safe.ai/statement-on-ai-risk#open-letter
61.
StatlerM. (2014). Developing wisdom in a business school? Critical reflections on pedagogical practice. Management Learning, 45(4), 397–417.
62.
TschangF. T.AlmirallE. (2021). Artificial intelligence as augmenting automation: Implications for employment. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(4), 642–659. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2019.0062
VinselL. (2023). Don’t get distracted by the hype around generative AI. MIT Sloan Management Review, 64(3), 1–3.
65.
WegnerD. M.WardA. F. (2013). How Google is changing your brain. Scientific American, 309(6), 58–61.
66.
WeidingerL.MellorJ.RauhM.GriffinC.UesatoJ.HuangP.-S.ChengM.GlaeseM.BalleB.KasirzadehA.KentonZ.BrownS.HawkinsW.StepletonT.BilesC.BirhaneA.HaasJ.RimellL.HendricksL. A., . . . GabrielI. (2021). Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.04359
67.
ZhangF.ParkerS. K. (2023). How ChatGPT can and can’t help managers design better job roles. MIT Sloan Management Review, 65(1), 1–5.
68.
ZhuC.SunM.LuoJ.LiT.WangM. (2023). How to harness the potential of ChatGPT in education?Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 15(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2023.15.008
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
