Business schools have been balancing faculty types for decades. On one hand, academic researchers sweat to produce more peer-reviewed papers. On the other hand, practitioner faculty tell stories from the trenches and elevate experiential learning. Between, institutions try to find the “perfect mix” of these supposedly distinct groups, for reasons ranging from budget constraints to accreditation requirements.
Artificial intelligence has now made this conversation urgent. When AI can teach accounting basics, analyze case studies, and synthesize research papers at a Ph.D. level, the world is increasingly questioning what unique value faculty and business schools are bringing to the table.
Academic researchers are our theory people. They’re designing complex studies, running statistical analyses, and publishing in journals most business professionals will never read. We value them for their intellectual rigor and advancement of deep knowledge, but increasingly question whether their work is relevant to students and their future employers.
Practitioners are the former executives and entrepreneurs who bring real-world experience to the classroom. Students love their stories and insights, but traditional academics often question whether these individuals have the analytical depth to advance business knowledge.
The more I evaluate and consider how to optimize the delivery model of academic programs and also the student experience (particularly when considering the targeted skill set to be acquired), the more this division strikes me as unnatural. It forces schools to make unnecessary trade-offs and reinforces the odd notion that theory and practice somehow exist separately. When was the last time a business leader succeeded without both conceptual understanding and practical know-how?
The Sweet Spot is in the Middle
The most influential business thinkers have operated at the intersection of rigorous thinking and practical application. Clayton Christensen didn’t develop disruptive innovation theory in an academic vacuum—he studied real companies and real market dynamics. Michael Porter’s competitive strategy frameworks merged economic theory with on-the-ground competitive analysis. The list goes on. The impact of such individuals occurred mostly because they refused to stay in a lane.
Instead of trying to balance two types of faculty, what if business schools cultivated people who literally transcend this false choice divide? Not a 50/50 split of researchers and practitioners—but faculty who are both, in different measures and combinations.
This means:
- Requiring researchers to get their hands dirty. Academic faculty need meaningful engagement with the business world—not just as occasional consultants, but as active participants who regularly test their ideas in real environments.
- Helping practitioners develop analytical muscles. Industry veterans bring invaluable experience, but they also need tools to systematize their insights and connect them to broader knowledge frameworks. Many haven’t been “doing the analysis” for a long time.
- Creating teaching teams that leverage complementary strengths. We could have many more courses co-taught by research specialists and industry experts, designing learning experiences that require the integration of theory and practice at deep levels.
Getting Real About Change
This framework requires fundamental shifts. Without them, it won’t happen.
- Rethinking hiring. Instead of separate tracks for academic and practice faculty, seek candidates who show potential for both kinds of impact—regardless of their primary background.
- Reimagining teaching. Create collaborative teaching models where faculty with different strengths work together rather than staying in their separate domains.
- Rewarding boundary-crossing work. Support research that explicitly bridges theory and practice, measuring success by impact across multiple domains.
- Embracing AI as a collaborator. Position faculty as orchestrators of learning experiences that combine technological capabilities with uniquely human insight.
The Bottom Line
As AI transforms both business and education, clinging to outdated faculty categories won’t work. The most effective business professors won’t fit neatly into our traditional boxes. They’ll transcend them, developing capabilities that complement rather than compete with emerging technologies.
The business schools that thrive won’t be asking about the “optimal mix” between researchers and practitioners. They’ll be reimagining faculty roles entirely for an era where the boundaries between theory and practice, human and machine intelligence, are increasingly blurred.
Perhaps most important, what AI can’t (yet) replicate is contextual judgment, ethical reasoning across complex situations, creative problem-solving that crosses domains, and the kind of human mentorship that connects technical skills to purpose and meaning. These capabilities emerge precisely at the rich intersection of deep analytical thinking, practical wisdom and human creativity. This is where the enduring value of business schools will exist.
About the Author
Tim Westerbeck, President
Tim Westerbeck is a leading strategic advisor to higher education institutions around the world. His work focuses on helping institutions grow amidst significant disruption, by defining strategies and new business models aligned with the future.
He has served as a columnist for Businessweek and is a frequent commentator in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and other global media.
Tim is also a regular presenter at global industry forums, such as the Indian Management Conclave, AACSB International, The European Foundation for Management Development, and others.
