Designing AI-supported leadership learning: what higher education needs to get right

AI has the potential to enhance leadership learning, but only when its use is driven by sound pedagogy rather than technological novelty. 

This blog sets out three practical design principles for integrating chatbots into leadership education as tools for rehearsal and structured reflection.

Why “adding AI” is not enough

Across higher education, generative artificial intelligence is being adopted at speed. Leadership education is no exception. Chatbots are now used for feedback, coaching-style dialogue, and reflective prompts. However, history reminds us, that new educational technologies do not automatically improve learning. What matters is how they are designed and embedded.

Recent systematic reviews show that chatbots are widely used in education and are often evaluated positively by learners (Debets, 2025; Anjulo Lambebo, 2025; Molter, 2025). Yet these same reviews highlight a recurring issue: many implementations lack strong pedagogical grounding. This is a critical warning for leadership education, where learning is complex, contextual, and deeply human.

What leadership learning actually involves?

Leadership learning extends well beyond acquiring information about theories or models. It involves judgement, reflection, identity formation, ethical reasoning, and communication under uncertainty (Northouse, 2021). These dimensions are traditionally developed through coaching, mentoring, role-play, and experiential learning.

Research has explored whether conversational AI could support these learning processes by providing structured reflection and scenario-based dialogue (Harper, 2025). The study involved a small cohort of participants engaged in leadership development activities who interacted with a generative AI chatbot during a facilitated trial. Participants used the chatbot to work through leadership scenarios, articulate decision rationales, and reflect on their responses in real time, rather than to receive definitive answers or instruction.

Participants did not view AI as a replacement for human educators, coaches, or mentors. Instead, they positioned it as a supportive, low-risk space for rehearsal, sense-making, and confidence-building. This suggests that the perceived value of conversational AI lies in its capacity to enable iterative reflection and practice, reinforcing leadership learning as a process of judgement formation and self-authorship rather than content acquisition.

AI as a developmental support, not an authority

Research on AI-supported coaching increasingly frames chatbots as useful for routine, repeatable developmental activities, such as goal clarification, reflective questioning, and preparation for conversations, while leaving ethical judgement and emotional nuance to humans (Learnovate Centre, 2025; The Conference Board, 2025). This distinction is vital in leadership education.

Participants in the study reported that AI-supported dialogue helped them articulate ideas, reflect privately, and prepare for leadership situations. However, they were also aware of AI’s limitations, particularly around context sensitivity and emotional understanding (Harper, 2025). This reinforces the need to position AI as formative support, not a definitive source of truth.

Three design principles for higher education:

Avoiding the hidden curriculum

If AI is introduced without careful design, learners may infer that speed matters more than judgement, or that outputs matter more than reasoning. Leadership education should do the opposite, reward reflection, ethical consideration, and critical engagement. AI can support this aim, but only if learning outcomes and assessment are aligned accordingly.

What this means for online leadership education

Online and blended environments offer strong opportunities for AI-supported leadership learning. They allow asynchronous reflection, repeated practice, and personalised support. However, effectiveness depends on clear expectations, scaffolded activities, and a shared understanding that responsibility for learning and leadership decisions remains human.

Conclusion 

I would love to hear your views. Connect with me on www.linkedin.com/in/dr-jennifer-harper-roberts2026  

Dr Jennifer Harper

Jennifer is Strategic Implementation Lead in the Faculty of Business and Law at The Open University, with over 12 years’ experience across higher and further education. Her work spans teaching and learning enhancement, academic quality, workforce development, and digitally mediated student experience. 

A Senior Fellow of Advance HE (SFHEA), she lectures and supervises at postgraduate level and researches leadership and strategy in technology-enabled education, with a focus on generative AI, organisational capability, and inclusive, sustainable change.