B-School Deans See An AI Future, But Are They Ready For It?

Business school deans know artificial intelligence is changing what their students need to learn, how their faculty should teach, and what employers expect from graduates.

They are less confident their schools are ready for it.

According to AACSB International’s 2026–27 Deans Survey, 87% of respondents rate AI readiness a high or very high strategic priority, but only about one in five give their schools similarly high marks for preparedness. Nearly three in 10 rate their schools’ preparedness low or very low.

Similarly, 74% of respondents identify AI readiness among their schools’ three biggest challenges over the next five years.

Meanwhile, deans acknowledge that preparing for that future requires money, people, and time that are increasingly difficult to get.

“The need to manage continuously higher expectations with budgets that shrink every year,” one respondent wrote when describing the challenges of the job. “Identifying areas to cut is becoming increasingly difficult; continuous improvement is at risk when key initiatives are no longer funded.”

AACSB conducts its deans survey every three years. This edition includes responses from 558 business school deans and leaders across 75 countries and territories. Seventy percent represent AACSB-accredited schools. It was released during AACSB’s annual Deans Conference this week in Orlando.

THE AI PROBLEM STARTS AT THE TOP

In March, AACSB President and CEO Lily Bi told Poets&Quants that AI must become an integral part of business education, embedded into the curriculum rather than added to it.

“Students need foundational knowledge and analytical skills to evaluate AI-generated results. Otherwise, how do we know the answer is correct? How do we identify bias or errors?” she asked. “Judgment is critical.”

The new survey suggests schools recognize that responsibility, but building the institutional and faculty capacity to deliver on it remains a substantial challenge.

In the survey, deans rated 49 activities associated with their jobs, assessing each activity’s priority, their own proficiency, and their interest in further development on five-point scales.

Deans ranked strategic planning as their first priority, with an average score of 4.61 out of 5. Deans rated their proficiency at 4.27.

AI in education and research ranked as the second priority, with an average priority score of 4.54 out of five, compared with a self-rated proficiency score of 3.41. That’s the largest gap between what deans consider important and how proficient they believe themselves to be. It is also the area where they most want to improve.

Experience in the job does little to close that gap. Newer and longer-serving deans report nearly identical differences between AI’s priority and their own proficiency – 1.14 points and 1.10 points respectively. The report defines newer deans as those who began their deanships in 2021 or later.

At the institutional level, the AI readiness gap is even larger –1.46 points between strategic priority and current preparedness on a five-point scale. Respondents rated it 4.37 for strategic priority versus 2.91 for preparedness. AI is the only dimension with average preparedness below 3.

On open-ended questions, several describe investments in AI that have outpaced faculty adoption. One wrote that employers want graduates who are “not only AI-literate … but AI-competent.” Another identified the problem as “faculty lacking AI and digital currency.”

“The rapid pace of AI and digital transformation requires us to continuously redesign curricula, pedagogy, and industry engagement, while also strengthening faculty capabilities and research impact,” another respondent wrote. “The real challenge is not adopting technology but ensuring that it translates into meaningful learning outcomes and better career opportunities.”

‘THE FUNDING MODEL IS BROKEN’

Asked to rank eight potential challenges facing their schools over the next five years, 59% of respondents place financial resilience among their top three, and 28% rank it first. AI ranks first for 40%. Together, the two account for 68% of first-place selections.

Financial resilience also has the second-largest gap between strategic priority and preparedness, at 1.06 points. In a separate, open-ended question, 34% of respondents identify budget, finances, and resources as their greatest current challenge. Enrollment and student recruitment follow. About one in five cite the relevance and value of curricula and programs, with a similar share identifying AI.

Two deans — one in the United States and one in the United Kingdom — independently wrote that the “funding model is broken.”

The U.S. respondent warned that, without a timely fix, schools will look much different.

The financial concerns are particularly pronounced in the Americas, where 68% of deans identify financial resilience among their schools’ three greatest challenges over the next five years. That compares with 51% in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

Deans in the Americas also express distinctive interest in improving their fundraising capabilities. Forty-four percent identify fundraising and donor engagement among the areas where they would value additional preparation or support.

The consequences extend beyond balancing a budget. Deans describe difficult decisions about which initiatives to fund, what to cut, and how to maintain quality while responding to demands for change.

For one dean in Brazil, taking a longer view “often implies making decisions that are not in the interest of the faculty and staff in the short term. Managing these conflicts is an enormous challenge.”

The preparedness concerns extend to what students get from their degrees. Learner value and outcomes — including graduate employment, salary progression, and employer satisfaction — receives the highest average strategic-priority rating, at 4.39 out of five. Yet only 48% of respondents rate their schools’ preparedness in this area high or very high. None of the eight areas assessed reaches 50%.

SHORTER TENURES, MORE DIVERSITY & MOUNTING POLITICAL PRESSURES

Business school deans are becoming more diverse and internationally experienced, even as their tenures shorten and some report less authority to lead.

Deanships are getting shorter. Respondents reported that their predecessors served an average of 5.7 years, down from 6.8 years in the 2020–21 survey. One-third left within three years.

According to their successors, 12% of previous deans were asked to step down or resign, 2% were terminated, and 14% finished appointments that were not renewed.

Among current deans, 60% have been in their positions for three years or less, though those appointments are still in progress.

The survey does not establish what is driving shorter tenures. Respondents describe mounting financial, enrollment, technological, and organizational pressures, but the findings do not show whether those pressures explain the departures.

Despite those pressures, 87% feel fulfilled by their work. Half say they have the work-life balance they want, up from 42% three years ago, while 32% disagree.

Women account for 34% of surveyed deans, up from 26% in 2020–21, and average age has edged down from 58 to 56. 63% speak at least two languages, and 42% have worked in multiple countries for a year or more.

Among first-time deans, 67% were appointed from within their institutions. Two-thirds of current deans have worked outside higher education, but only 2% moved directly into their current deanship from a nonacademic role.

“Running a business school is a business, just with different metrics,” one respondent wrote.

Yet some question whether they have the authority to run it. One described the job as “becoming more like a middle manager and less like an executive” as provosts centralize decisions.

“The gap between the job description and the actual implementation of the role is huge,” the respondent wrote.

Political uncertainty further complicates the work. U.S. deans cite debates over tenure, public funding, and higher education’s value. A Canadian dean describes pressure to generate revenue while government approvals make international partnerships harder to pursue.

“It is extremely difficult to plan when the rules keep changing,” one respondent wrote.

PREPARING FOR WHAT COMES NEXT

The survey identifies a substantial appetite for development. Beyond AI, deans want to strengthen their capabilities in digital innovation, institutional reputation, employer engagement, and revenue diversification.

But finding the capacity to do so is another matter.

Alongside the 84% reporting “limited, very limited, or no time for professional development,” 54% report funding constraints while 45% describe their institutions as very or extremely supportive of their development.

Across all eight dimensions of institutional future readiness, deans rate strategic priority above current preparedness. They see work ahead in every area assessed, even as many are already struggling to find room for the demands of the job.

As one respondent wrote: “We are suffering from years of failing to tell our story — we just assumed people knew the important role we play — and are now paying the price for that.”

The survey ran July 17 through August 24, 2026, reached 1,881 leaders in AACSB’s network, and received a 30% response rate. Find the full survey here.

DON’T MISS: MICHIGAN ROSS’ SHARON MATUSIK, APPOINTED TO A 2ND TERM, ON PREPARING BUILDERS FOR THE AGE OF AI AND IS THE MBA STILL WORTH IT IN THE AGE OF AI? 2 STUDENTS AND A TROVE OF COACHING DATA SAY YES – WITH CAVEATS 

© Copyright 2026 Poets & Quants. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Poets & Quants, please submit your request HERE.