Teacher Giving Computer Science Lecture to Diverse Multiethnic Group in Business Schools

By George Sammour

A new pedagogical methodology is emerging in business education, forcing a fundamental question: Can you teach someone how to be creative, and how would you even grade that?

For decades, the path to business leadership was guided by a principle of analytical certainty, where comprehension of spreadsheets, financial models, and data-driven protocols defined the essential competencies for aspiring executives. However, the rise of AI is systematically automating analytical tasks, thereby displacing the relevance of this traditional foundation. In response, business schools are redirecting their curricula to prioritize the human competencies expected to define future leadership skills such as, creativity, empathy, ethical reasoning, and resilience. The challenge, however, is how do you design a syllabus for creativity? How do you issue a grade for empathy? This new pedagogical push is forcing institutions to confront a contradiction at the core of modern education, in an attempt to preserve what makes us human, are they trying to turn it into an algorithm?

The New Curriculum: From Case Studies to Improv Classes

Imagine walking into a classroom at a business school. You expect to find students in suits, hooked over laptops, debating the numbers in quarterly earnings report. Instead, you find a circle of future executives on their feet. One student, her face expressed with theatrical frustration, slams an imaginary fist onto a table. “This is unacceptable!” she declares. Facing her, a classmate embodying the ‘manager’ takes a breath, his mind racing as he searches for a response. His only instruction: “Yes, and…”. In the classroom environment there are no spreadsheets, no PowerPoint slide decks, just the raw, volatile energy of human interaction. The scene unfolding before you is far from a simple acting exercise. While it may look like a drama club rehearsal, this is, in fact, a deliberate pedagogical experiment in leadership development at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. The skills being developed here, spontaneous thinking, deep listening, and seamless collaboration, are becoming the new foundation of management. In a world reshaped by AI, the ability to navigate the unscripted moments of human interaction is now deemed as crucial as constructing a flawless financial model.

This new focus includes a creation of courses with titles like “Leading with Empathy,” “Design Thinking for Complex Problems,” and “The Art and Science of Creativity.” At Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, programs send students to museums like the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art to practice observation and interpretation, arguing that understanding abstract art builds the cognitive flexibility needed to see business challenges from new angles.

Instead of multiple-choice exams, students write reflective essays about leadership challenges, build “innovation portfolios,” and get peer feedback on teamwork. This allows for grading students on the robustness and originality of their creative process instead of the success of their ideas. This shift towards qualitative assessment is a top trend identified by the AACSB, the primary accrediting body for business schools.

The AI Paradox: Using the Machine to Teach Humans

Leading business schools are experimenting with AI as a tool to strengthen distinctly human skills. AI-powered pitch training platforms now leverage machine learning and natural language processing to analyze tone, clarity, body language, and verbal patterns, delivering insights not readily apparent to human observers. These algorithms, trained on massive datasets of pitching examples, generate insights across multiple dimensions including clarity, emotion, and momentum.

New AI tools guide students through entrepreneurship principles while keeping human judgment front and center, allowing them to pressure-test go-to-market strategies and product ideas. Business schools are converging around four key competencies for the AI era: critical thinking and judgment, emotional intelligence and empathy, creative problem-solving, and ethical reasoning. Yet critics worry this approach trivializes profound human qualities. Some educators argue that technology may render specific skills obsolete, and that learning content represents a commodity accessible to anyone. The concern is whether creativity and empathy can truly be taught through structured pedagogy, or if some qualities remain best “caught, not taught.”

The shift reflects a broader recognition that as AI becomes ubiquitous, technology alone won’t provide differentiation. Research has identified that work dependent on human characteristics such as empathy, judgment, and hope is less likely to be replaced by machines. As one student reflected: “I came to this module expecting to learn how to use AI tools. I left understanding how to think with them”.

The Central Question: Grading the Soul?

This debate cuts to the heart of business education’s identity. Advocates argue that while empathy itself may be intangible, organizations can assess whether candidates identify emotional needs of colleagues, take meaningful action, and achieve positive outcomes in workplace interactions. Assessment rubrics interpret expectations so students can focus on work instead of guessing what instructors want.

The business case is captivating. According to GMAC’s 2023 Corporate Recruiters Survey, 81% of recruiters identify interpersonal skills as important, more than any other kind of skills. As one recruiter noted, “Everyone coming out of business school seems to have the technological familiarity we require. Soft skills, like communications and people skills, tend to make the difference”. Some now ask candidates to describe times they “failed with empathy,” seeking graduates who can articulate and apply these qualities in corporate contexts.

Yet critics fear that quantifying the human diminishes it. Applying abstract descriptions of “poor” work to individual students can have an objectifying effect, especially if rubric descriptions lack emotional sensitivity. Can creativity truly be captured in learning outcomes, or are we cultivating “creativity technicians” rather than visionaries?

According to McKinsey, 87% of organizations already face skill gaps or expect to within a few years, particularly in communication, empathy, and problem-solving. AI will handle repetitive, data-heavy tasks, but human creativity, perception, and emotional intelligence will continue to drive innovation.

The era of STEM supremacy may be ending, but the dawn of the “Creativity Quotient” raises a profound question: In trying to future-proof leaders against the rise of machines, are business schools programming the humanity out of them, or democratizing soft skills once reserved for those lucky enough to find the right mentor? The answer will define both business education and the nature of leadership for decades to come.

This article was originally published in The World Financial Review on 30 November 2025. It can be accessed here: https://worldfinancialreview.com/the-creativity-quotient-can-business-schools-really-teach-what-ai-will-never-learn

Go to top

About the Author

Dr. George SammourDr. George Sammour is Associate Professor at Princess Sumaya University for Technology, Jordan. His expertise includes data analytics, business intelligence, and e-learning. He serves on editorial boards and accreditation committees, mentors universities in AACSB accreditation, and has published widely while leading quality assurance and academic development initiatives in higher education.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here