PUB
  • Home
  • Sources
  • Search
  • About

Professional Resilience in Business Administration Higher Education: A Human–AI Framework for Responsible Management Learning

Ren You
Journal of Educational Development and Social Sciences, (2026), Vol.1, No.6, pp.41-52
Published: October 28, 2026
DOI: 10.62051/jedss.v1n6.05
PDF: Download Full Text PDF
Abstract

Artificial intelligence is reshaping managerial work by automating selected tasks, augmenting interpretation, and altering how organizations distribute authority and expertise. Business administration programs often respond by adding isolated technology content, yet tool acquisition alone does not prepare students to exercise judgment when outputs are uncertain, stakeholder interests conflict, or established routines lose relevance. This conceptual paper investigates professional resilience as an integrating basis for management education in AI contexts. Professional resilience is defined as the multi-level capacity of students, faculty, and degree programs to anticipate change, adapt managerial and educational practices, and transform routines while preserving responsible management purposes. Through a structured synthesis of management education, AI and organization, resilience, and professional learning literature, the paper develops a framework comprising five capabilities: anticipatory sensemaking, augmentation literacy, critical managerial judgment, adaptive organizing, and responsible stewardship. These capabilities are embedded in a purpose-anchored curriculum, human–AI collaborative inquiry, situated and reflective learning, inclusive professional identity formation, and adaptive program governance. Authentic assessment combines decision records, output critiques, stakeholder explanations, oral defenses, and developmental portfolios to make reasoning and revision visible. Implementation proceeds through mission diagnosis, curriculum mapping, controlled pedagogical pilots, and assurance of learning, supported by faculty collaboration and proportionate technology governance. The framework connects individual adaptability with the program’s own capacity to learn, rather than treating resilience as a personality trait or resistance to curriculum change. It contributes design principles for developing managers who can work with AI without delegating accountability to it. The paper is conceptual and claims no empirical effectiveness; future research should examine the framework through longitudinal, comparative, and practice-based studies.

Keywords: Business administration education, Professional resilience, Artificial intelligence, Human–AI collaboration, Management learning, Responsible management
APA Citation: Ren You (2026). Professional Resilience in Business Administration Higher Education: A Human–AI Framework for Responsible Management Learning. Journal of Educational Development and Social Sciences, 1(6), 41-52. https://doi.org/10.62051/jedss.v1n6.05

References

  1. Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–104.
  2. Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. Berrett-Koehler.
  3. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.16132558
  4. Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton University Press.
  5. Datar, S. M., Garvin, D. A., & Cullen, P. G. (2010). Rethinking the MBA: Business education at a crossroads. Harvard Business Press.
  6. Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2009). How relevant is the MBA? Assessing the alignment of required curricula and required managerial competencies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(2), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2009.41788843
  7. Davenport, T. H., & Ronanki, R. (2018). Artificial intelligence for the real world. Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 108–116.
  8. Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
  9. Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007
  10. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.
  11. Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Business Research, 13(1), 215–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7
  12. Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 94–110). Berrett-Koehler.
  13. Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001
  14. Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20149
  15. Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805
  16. Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. (2018). Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization, 28(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.005
  17. Dellermann, D., Ebel, P., Söllner, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2019). Hybrid intelligence. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61(5), 637–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-019-00595-2
  18. Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., et al. (2019). Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–13). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300233
  19. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1
  20. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
  21. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526054622015
  22. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
  23. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
  24. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., et al. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
  25. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
  26. United Nations Global Compact. (2007). Principles for responsible management education. United Nations Global Compact.
  27. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
  28. Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu (Y. Punie, Ed.). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770
  29. Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2020). Guiding principles and standards for business accreditation. AACSB International.
© 2026 PUB · Seek truth with rigour