Poets&Quants | Commentary: Is The Case Method Part Of The Problem

A recent article questioning the purpose of business schools raises important questions about how future business leaders are educated. Its author, Chris Marquis, argues that business schools can narrow students’ sense of possibility, marginalize societal challenges and fail to nurture the desire many students bring with them to make a positive difference. These are challenges worth taking seriously.

The article also questions the case method, suggesting that it narrows students’ imagination to individual managerial decisions, presents carefully packaged corporate narratives, focuses disproportionately on business success stories and strips away the complexity of business reality. These criticisms deserve consideration, but they risk treating particular cases and approaches to teaching as representative of the method as a whole.

The case method is not simply a way of training students to make decisions within existing business structures. Its educational value depends on the cases educators select, the formats in which they are presented, the learning objectives they set and the questions they invite students to explore.

The question is not whether case teaching can reinforce conventional thinking. It can. The question is whether that is an inherent limitation of the method, or a consequence of how it is used.

THE CASES WE CHOOSE MATTER

Consider the widely taught Rob Parson at Morgan Stanley case from Harvard Business School that Marquis cites in the article. As he suggests, it can be used to explore an individual’s performance and a manager’s promotion decision. It could however, also prompt a wider discussion about organisational culture, the balance between commercial performance and cultural fit, and the behaviors and values that organizations reward when making promotion decisions. Students can also be encouraged to question the assumptions underlying these expectations, rather than simply deciding how best to work within them.

A program built around cases that focus exclusively on profitability, individual managerial effectiveness or the achievement of organizational goals may indeed reinforce a narrow view of business. But that is an argument for examining the selection of cases across the curriculum and how they are taught, not for assuming that the case method itself necessarily produces this outcome.

WHOSE STORIES ARE BEING TOLD?

Some cases are developed with organizations and reflect perspectives those organizations are comfortable sharing. This can influence which issues are explored and whose voices are heard. But not all cases are limited to corporate narratives: they can explore small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), non-profit organizations and other types of business, and do not always require an organization’s permission or approval.

Field research can bring together different perspectives, including those of employees, customers, suppliers and other stakeholders. Cases developed from published sources can also be written without the organization’s involvement or approval, giving authors greater independence in how they frame the situation. Published sources have their own limitations, of course, and may offer an incomplete or selective account of events.

The important questions are what evidence a case draws on, whose perspectives it represents and whether its limitations are acknowledged.

Nor is it accurate to suggest that cases almost always feature winners. Many examine business failures, missed opportunities, difficult transitions and decisions whose consequences remain uncertain. These situations can be particularly valuable for learning, provided students are encouraged to examine not only what went wrong, but also the assumptions, incentives and circumstances that shaped events.

Failure alone does not guarantee critical thinking. Educators must still ask whose perspective defines the problem, which consequences matter and what alternative explanations or courses of action deserve consideration.

COMPLEXITY BELONGS IN THE CLASSROOM

The criticism that cases simplify business reality deserves attention. Cases must have a manageable scope if students are to investigate a situation and work towards a decision within the time available. The danger arises when that focus becomes distortion: when organizational culture, power, competing interests or wider societal forces are stripped away because they complicate the story.

Focus is not the same as distortion.

A well-designed case provides a basis for inquiry, not necessarily a complete account of reality. The classroom discussion can go beyond the information presented, examining what may be missing, questioning how the problem has been framed and considering perspectives that the available evidence does not fully capture. Teaching notes can help educators explore these possibilities and connect the case to its intended learning objectives.

One case cannot encompass every dimension of a business situation. That is why the wider program matters. Students need opportunities to encounter different contexts, conflicting evidence and genuine ambiguity, as well as to question whether the choices presented to them are the right ones in the first place.

WHOSE BUSINESS, AND WHOSE EXPERIENCE?

Case collections have traditionally drawn heavily on familiar organizations and senior business leaders. But the range of cases available to educators continues to expand, encompassing local businesses, different organizational contexts, and protagonists at a variety of levels.

Our 2025 student survey highlighted the importance students place on representation: 90% of respondents considered diversity in case study protagonists, decision-makers, and perspectives important, with 62% rating it as very important and 28% as important.

Representation matters. It can influence who students see as a leader, whose experiences are considered relevant and which business challenges receive attention.

Yet a wider range of protagonists is not, on its own, enough to challenge conventional assumptions about growth, profitability or the purpose of business. That requires cases and classroom discussions that also question the objectives organizations pursue and the consequences of their decisions.

There are encouraging signs that authors and educators are paying greater attention to representation, but more remains to be done to ensure students encounter a diverse range of protagonists, perspectives and business experiences.

BEYOND THE HARVARD MODEL

How cases are developed and distributed also shapes the range of material available to educators. Harvard Business School is a prominent example of an institution with an established case publishing operation, but its model should not be taken as representative of all business schools. The Case Centre brings together cases from a wide range of schools and organizations, reflecting different approaches to case writing and publishing.

For most schools, case publishing is not a moneymaking business. Royalties often fail to cover the costs of developing cases in the first place. Some institutions also make cases freely available, and The Case Centre’s collection includes more than 2,200 free cases, giving educators access to a wide range of teaching materials without a purchase cost.

A METHOD THAT MUST KEEP EVOLVING

Ultimately, the article raises a challenge that business schools should take seriously: education must do more than prepare students to operate within existing systems. It should help them question assumptions, confront the social and environmental consequences of business decisions and explore how organizations might contribute to addressing wider challenges. It should also nurture, rather than diminish, students’ desire to make a difference.

The case method has an important role to play in this. It can develop students’ ability to analyze evidence, weigh competing perspectives, exercise judgement under uncertainty and explain and defend their decisions. These skills are particularly important in an era of AI, when students must be able to assess the evidence behind a recommendation, recognize what is missing, question the assumptions on which an analysis rests and consider whose interests it serves.

Case discussions can provide opportunities to test AI-generated analyses, interrogate their reasoning and explore alternative interpretations. But these skills do not develop automatically. Educators need to design learning experiences that reward critical engagement, not simply the production of plausible answers.

Business schools must continue to select and develop cases judiciously, ensuring that their curricula reflect the complexity of business and society. They should encourage students to question not only individual decisions, but also the objectives, assumptions and systems that shape them.

The case method cannot, on its own, redeem a business school model that fails to address these responsibilities. Nor should it be expected to. But it can help students examine the choices businesses make, question the systems in which those choices occur and explore alternatives.

Perhaps the more useful question, then, is not whether the case method is part of the problem, but how it can be used more effectively as part of the solution.

Antoinette Mills is Director of Communications at The Case Centre, the independent home of the case method. She has nearly 30 years’ experience working with the global case community and promoting the use and development of cases in business education.

© 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.