The Challenges of Leadership Education

August 1, 2025

Implementing Decisions
Making good decisions is critical, but implementing them is even more important—and far harder. In the past, implementation was less of an issue because people respected authority, the issues were simpler, and change happened slowly. Today, things are different. Modern culture encourages questioning authority, technology has made problems more complex, and in a society of abundance, people are more independent and less compliant.

Despite this, business schools haven’t adapted. They do not teach the art and science of implementation, the art of politics. They teach decision-making in areas like marketing and finance as if a good decision will automatically be implemented because it was a good decision. It happens in my opinion because most professors in Business schools have no experience in managing a company. They do not realize the complexity of implementing decisions.

The Faculty Problem
Most business school professors have never managed organizations. Many move directly from high school to college, then to master's and doctoral programs, and finally into teaching, without ever leading in the real world. I was one of them.

I discovered this gap when I was asked to consult for a major bank that had $120 billion in assets. They wanted to know how to change their culture to rejuvenate their bureaucracy and become more agile. I realized I didn’t know the answer—and neither did the curriculum I was teaching. No course addressed implementation, and I couldn’t find relevant literature on the subject. So, I decided to explore the field myself by trying to implement decisions I had as a consultant.

When I approached my department chair to request time off to study effective implementation, the response was clear: “We are into research, not consulting.” This bias against practical experience has severely limited management education.

Why This Happens
Historically, business schools have fought to be taken seriously in academia. When Harvard Business School was established, the rest of Harvard treated it as a “trade school,” dismissing its work as unacademic and unscientific. To gain legitimacy, business schools focused heavily on being “scientific.”

This led to practical experience being undervalued as “too soft” for academia. Even Peter Drucker, one of the most respected thinkers in management, was dismissed by NYU as a journalist rather than a true academic. Today, faculty are promoted based on publishing in highly technical journals, while practical knowledge from leading or consulting are ignored.

The Effects
This theory-heavy approach has made MBA programs value questionable. Graduates often lack the skills to implement change and are unprepared for leadership. Many end up in staff roles (finance, planning, etc.) or move into investment banking and consulting, leaving implementation to others.

To fix this, we need to:

  • Hire faculty with real-world experience, similar to clinical professors in medical schools.
  • Create journals for field-tested solutions and practical management insights, which should count toward promotion and tenure.
  • Shift the focus back to teaching what managers need: how to manage and implement change.


From Muscle to Brain to Heart

If we analyze the development of humanity it started with the chimpanzees. The strongest was the leader. Then we were a nomadic society, the strongest hunter was the leader. When we became an agricultural society the person with most cows or sheep was the leader. The common denominator is: Power, obsession with ownership of assets. Then came the industrial revolution. The brain got into the game. Planning. Hiring, firing. What came next is the postindustrial society where the brain is the dominant factor. Muscles can be outsourced. It is the brain that counts. Now we are at the post, postindustrial society. The brain is on its way out. AI is taking the place of our brain. What is the future than? How to compete with companies that dominate with AI?

I suggest that the future is the heart. It better be, or our future will resemble Nazi Germany.
Lots of brain and muscle but no heart.

This conclusion has repercussions for leadership training. What makes a future leader successful is not what he or she knows but what they ARE. What kind of people they are, their values, their humanity. Their compassion. Features AI does not have. Anyway, not yet.
 
To BE is not learned in lectures or in reading books. It has to be experienced. Future leadership training should be to work with the underprivileged. Leaders of the future  should have not only a brain but a heart as well or our humanity is doomed.

Written by
Dr. Ichak Adizes

Related Insights

More blog entries from these categories