Problem-solving is becoming automated. Slowly at first, then all at once.
AI can already do what we used to call “analysis”: synthesize data, model outcomes, simulate trade-offs. In a few years, most of the case studies we teach will be solvable with a single prompt. The game has changed — we just haven’t updated the rulebook.
So what’s left for humans?
Point of view.
Not in the “everyone’s entitled to one” sense. I mean the ability to judge, to synthesize, to stand for something when the data looks equally persuasive on both sides. Judgment built through friction, uncertainty, and lived experience — not through frameworks or perfect answers.
And yet, walk into most business schools and you’ll find the same playbook: frameworks, templates, and clean decks pretending to teach messy realities. We’re still grooming analysts when the world needs deciders. Students who can think in ambiguity, not just fill in blanks.
I see this every day in class. My students are smart, but they’ve been trained to look for the “right” answer — the one that pleases the professor, fits the framework, checks the rubric. It takes weeks to untrain that instinct and replace it with something far rarer: confidence in their own judgment. And it’s tougher than you think.
A few weeks ago, one of my students — let’s call her Sofia — interrupted a discussion on branding ethics with a single line: “If AI influencers outperform humans, why shouldn’t brands use them?” She believed brands should be allowed to use AI-generated influencers instead of human ones. That was her point of view. The room froze. Half the class called it manipulative, the other half said it was just evolution. No framework could settle it. They had to navigate the gray — ethics, economics, creativity, authenticity — all colliding at once. It wasn’t about the “right” answer anymore. It was about developing a position and standing behind it. And as a result everyone left with something more valuable than an answer: a point of view.
That’s the shift I’ve been making in my own teaching — designing programs that cultivate point of view instead of just teaching it. Projects where there’s no single right call. Where trade-offs are real. Where decisions have consequences. Where students feel the weight of uncertainty and have to navigate it anyway. And ultimately, have to stand by their point of view.
Because that’s the real skill.
AI will soon handle the problem-solving. The rest — judgment, conviction, and consequence — stays on us.