Why MBAs Still Need Critical Thinking in the Age of AI

Every year, we see new faces in the MBA classroom with mixed emotions. A state of ambivalence persists till they get accustomed to the system called IIMs. Days get shorter. Nights get longer. Assignment after assignments and orientation after orientations. They navigate complexity and its associated challenges. They are burdened by everything that screams ‘be professional’ and ‘be a multitasker.’ The idea of “hustle” and the compulsive race to be a “multitasker” infiltrate their thinking far more rapidly than the slower discipline of thinking well. Inevitably, they summon an AI-powered genie that serves at the precipice of their impending deadline.

When they sit for the critical thinking classes, like their predecessors, they too ask the same old question, “Why do MBAs need critical thinking at all?” They argue, “We have all the analytical tools at our disposal. What could critical thinking possibly offer more?” There is a remarkable consistency in their tone. The good thing is they asked a question, unlike the billions who do not.  

This question is not new, but it has acquired fresh urgency in the contemporary age of artificial intelligence. The rise of generative AI has intensified a long-standing misunderstanding that critical thinking is a compensatory skill, required only when information is scarce, tools are inadequate, or data is incomplete. In reality, the opposite has always been true. Critical thinking is not a substitute for AI; it is the precondition that allows both to be used meaningfully. Imagine if answers could be generated instantly and scenarios simulated endlessly; what exactly would remain for the human mind to do?

Speaking of the human mind, the movie 12 Angry Men shows how the initial rush to convict based on surface-level data can lead to flawed decision-making and how emotions, prejudices, and ignorance can cloud judgment. Only one juror out of 12 does not accept things on face value but emphasizes reasonable doubt. If anything, we can learn from this classic movie: data alone cannot speak for itself. Questioning our thinking and willingness to challenge our assumptions are critical to sustainable decision-making.

At its core, critical thinking refers to the disciplined capacity to analyse assumptions, evaluate evidence, recognize bias, and exercise judgment under conditions of uncertainty. Educational theorists such as Robert Ennis and Richard Paul have long argued that this capacity lies at the heart of professional reasoning.

In management contexts, it has always been central to managerial decision-making. Long before algorithms entered boardrooms, managers were required to navigate ambiguity, weigh competing interests, and take responsibility for decisions whose consequences unfolded over time. What artificial intelligence today changes is not the need for judgment, but the speed, scale, and apparent authority with which outputs are produced.

For MBA graduates, the danger lies less in AI replacing human thought and more in its ability to make complex decisions appear as if they have already been thought through. Generative systems are strong at recognizing patterns and combining probabilities. As a result, they generate polished and confident answers that look like reasoning, even though no actual reasoning is taking place. Reports, such as the Harvard Gazette’s “Is AI Dulling Our Minds?” and research discussions emerging from the MIT Media Lab, caution that excessive reliance on automated cognitive tools can weaken independent judgment. Large language models can generate options, but they cannot evaluate truth claims, adjudicate ethical dilemmas, or grasp social context in the thick, lived sense that managerial decisions demand.

This distinction matters deeply in business settings. Consider strategy formulation, crisis communication, or people management. In each case, data and models inform decisions, but they do not resolve them. A restructuring plan may be financially optimal and yet socially corrosive. A marketing strategy may be analytically sound and reputationally disastrous. A performance metric may be precise and profoundly unfair. These tensions cannot be solved by optimisation alone. They require interpretation, reflexivity, and moral reasoning, all of which sit squarely within the domain of critical thinking.

Global policy and industry reports reinforce this point. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs reports consistently place analytical and critical thinking among the most important skills for the future workforce, even as artificial intelligence capabilities expand. This is not a contradiction. It reflects an acknowledgement that, as routine cognitive tasks are automated, the human contribution shifts upward toward framing problems, questioning premises, integrating diverse forms of knowledge, and anticipating second-order consequences. The more powerful our tools become, the more consequential human judgment becomes.

From a pedagogical perspective, this is precisely why critical thinking appears so early in MBA curricula. It is not an ornamental soft skill appended to finance, analytics, or strategy courses. It is the cognitive infrastructure on which those courses rest. Case-based pedagogy, long associated with management education, does not aim to produce correct answers; instead, it seeks to foster critical thinking. As highlighted in business education reports on critical thinking in MBA programs, case-based pedagogy is designed to cultivate reasoning habits among students, including identifying assumptions, recognizing trade-offs, and making decisions under conditions of uncertainty, rather than relying solely on optimization. When MBA students assume managerial roles, their leadership will require accountability for decisions, not merely alignment with dashboards or metrics. In an increasingly AI-mediated workplace, the burden of ethical decision-making on these young minds intensifies rather than diminishes.

MBA education must therefore resist the temptation to reframe critical thinking as an AI era add-on. Doing so misrepresents both history and necessity. The task is not to teach students how to compete with machines, but how to work with them without surrendering their agency. Building this mindset requires cultivating habits of questioning, interpretive skill, and ethical reflexivity alongside technical competence.

When students ask why critical thinking matters, the most honest answer is also the simplest. Management is not about knowing more. It is about deciding well. No technology, however advanced, can relieve humans of that burden. The age of AI brings us back to an older truth: decisions are made by people, not by tools. The quality of those decisions depends, now and as always, on the quality of thinking that precedes them.

Both authors teach managerial communication, critical thinking, and interpersonal skills courses at the Indian Institute of Management Kashipur.

(Disclaimer: This is an authored article, and the views expressed are solely those of the contributors and do not reflect the opinions of Outlook Business.)