From muscle to brain — work has evolved across eras. The Industrial Age valued physical strength, but today, intelligence and adaptability propel success. As we look to the future, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation are rapidly reshaping the landscape. The next frontier has already extended beyond cognitive power toward the use of soft skills. So, as machines become more capable, are we prepared to redefine intelligence beyond what the brain alone can offer to make decisions?
Minouche Shafik, former Director of the London School of Economics, emphasizes that in the future of work, it is the ‘heart’ — not the muscle or the brain — that will matter most (Soommerfelt, 2024). Her insight underscores the growing importance of emotional intelligence and empathy in navigating today’s multifaceted decision-making environments. Now, as AI systems have and are becoming increasingly embedded in our personal, professional, and institutional choices, the space for purely rational, data-driven outcomes has widened. Algorithms possess the capacity to process extensive datasets and generate decisions that, on the surface, appear optimal. Nonetheless, the increasing reliance on AI within managerial processes invites a critical examination of whether such technological dependence may erode the nuanced judgment traditionally exercised by human decision-makers. Does AI’s role in decision-making risk prioritizing rationality at the expense of emotional intelligence?
AI’s Reach and Restraints
Kaplan and Haenlein (2019) define AI as a system’s ability to interpret external data correctly (from big data), to learn from such data (without being explicitly programmed), and to use those learnings to achieve specific goals and tasks through flexible adaptation. AI has a ‘mind’ which can make it intelligent based on which it can process a large amount of information, learn patterns and make decisions based on data. Generative AI (GenAI) systems have the ability to recognise and predict patterns in a variety of signals or data types (Ratnatunga, 2024). Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and Gemini, are sophisticated computer programs trained on vast datasets comprising text from sources like websites, books, and films. This extensive exposure enables them to recognize patterns and interpret linguistic meaning. (ibid).
AI is changing how leaders make decisions, offering powerful tools to improve results. But while its influence keeps growing, there are limits that call for careful consideration, especially when human judgment and values are involved. OpenAI has moved quickly to create enterprise-friendly instances that are secure for teams to use, and those teams only have to feed it data once for all members to benefit making it an improved collaboration tool. The speed of processing data by AI outmatches any human workforce on a more repetitive, yet cognitively demanding tasks. With their growing prowess in predictive accuracy, AI systems are being rapidly embraced across a diverse array of fields. AI is now being applied across a wide range of industries, including medical field, human resources, accounting and auditing, retail, e-commerce, transportation and logistics, manufacturing, education, agriculture, energy, media, entertainment, and scientific research—among many others.
In wealth management, financial advisors leverage AI across a wide spectrum of tasks—from routine activities like summarizing meeting notes, reviewing emails, and drafting advertising and marketing materials, to more advanced applications such as predictive forecasting, scenario modelling, risk assessment, portfolio optimisation, automated reporting, regulatory compliance, and intelligent document management. AI can automate repetitive management accounting tasks avoiding human errors, perform repetitive operations and use intelligent algorithms to reduce costs. There is no doubt that researchers are increasingly exploring how AI can complement and strengthen human decision-making processes.
Despite the considerable advantages of AI, its deployment is not without potential risks and adverse outcomes. AI is all about ‘machine learning’ but there is a constant danger that we are ‘interacting’ only with hardware and software (Roberts et al., 2024). Guthrie (2023) used a AI program in his report to an Australian Parliament senate enquiry, only to find that the AI generated authoritative sounding output that was incorrect, incomplete and biased. Currently, there is no common consensus on the feasibility and validity of using generative AI for decision making efficiency. Since AI decisions are often shaped by subjective parameters their reliability in addressing complex managerial decisions—particularly those demanding creativity—remains uncertain and is questionable.
The duality of expansive reach and intrinsic restraint raises questions about the role of human judgment in algorithmically driven decision-making environments. A primary concern on the use of AI for decision making is the potential for AI to overlook the nuanced, emotional, and ethical aspects of decision-making that are inherent to human managers. AI systems, while highly efficient, may lack the ability to fully comprehend and integrate empathy and compassion into their algorithms. This can lead to decisions that could be logically sound but may not align with the humane standards. Also, decisions made with reliance on AI can result in distancing management from employees, as employees’ trust in AI remains questionable. Regardless of the degree of intelligence or autonomy AI agents may attain in certain domains, they are likely to remain, at least for the foreseeable future, unconscious entities or task-specific instruments designed to assist humans in executing complex and specialized functions.
The Head-Heart Dichotomy in Decision-Making
While digital reasoning and AI problem-solving agents may mimic aspects of human cognition, their resemblance to biological counterparts remains largely superficial (Boden et al., 2017). For over three decades, even before the advent of AI, researchers have investigated decision-making processes and the interplay between cognition (head/brain) and emotion or intuition (heart) (For example: Bohm & Burn, 2008; Burke & Miller, 1999; Schwarz, 2000). Although the head and heart are biological organs, they are frequently invoked as metaphors for rational thought and emotional insight in everyday discourse. Numerous Western theorists have examined the symbolic difference between the head and the heart, emphasizing its significance in understanding the interplay between rational thought, emotional intuition, and human decision-making.
The head as a symbol of rationality represents logic, analysis and objectivity and makes decisions based on facts and reason. In western philosophy, the head is seen as the seat of rational thought and control and is often linked to discipline, strategy and intellectual pursuits. Whereas the heart is a symbol of emotion and intuition which embodies feelings, empathy and emotional intelligence. It is seen as the source of passion and compassion and is associated with authenticity and relational depth. In yogic traditions the heart is portrayed as the core of one’s true self or soul.
While head drives by reason, the heart drives by feelings. In decision-making, the head engages with its logical intelligence driven by analysis and reason, while the heart draws on emotional intelligence, guided by empathy and intuition. The heart has a two-way communication with the brain which significantly affects the way an individual perceives and reacts to the world (McCraty, 2001). This contrast between the head and the heart reflects a core duality in human nature, where we often grapple with what we think is right versus what we feel is right.
According to the ancient yogic philosophy, the heart and head are interconnected; both play different yet significant roles. The heart is seen as the centre of our inner self, where real wisdom and understanding comes from. The head helps us to think and reason—it is used for logic and reflection. In everyday life, individuals are left with a dilemma if they must ‘follow their heart’ or ‘use their head’. For those in managerial positions, this inner conflict becomes central to shaping responsible and effective decisions for their organisation. Why does the interplay between the rational mind and the feeling heart hold greater significance now, as AI reshapes our ways of knowing, choosing, and connecting?
Balancing Intellect and Intuition in Management
In the sphere of managerial decision-making, the symbolic interplay between the head and the heart is particularly salient. Effective management often demands a balance between analytical rigour and emotional awareness; between logical evaluation and intuitive foresight and there is a need to shift from purely analytical thinking towards a balanced approach rooted in inner awareness and emotional connectedness. While AI systems continue to enhance cognitive capacity (i.e., logical intelligence) by offering data-driven insights, it remains restricted in exhibiting the qualities of introspection, empathy, and ethical discernment (emotional intelligence) that human leadership demands.
For several decades, technical and data-driven competencies have been at the forefront of workplace skill requirements. Nowadays, in consideration of rapid advancements in AI, the necessity for managers to further cultivate these logical skills has diminished. In contrast, soft skills of the heart that were historically undervalued are emerging as some of the most dependable and valuable qualities in the evolving landscape of work (Raman & Flynn, 2024).
Currently, experts agree that AI cannot truly develop intuition in the same way as humans do, as it lacks the necessary biological and experiential foundation for ‘gut feelings’ or subconscious reasoning that underpins human intuition (Kini, 2025). While AI can support managerial decision-making through enhanced data interpretation, managers may discover new ways to refine their intuitive judgment in response to evolving challenges and human dynamics. This can help to bring back the depth that often slips through the cracks in AI-only decision-making, thereby rekindling the human spark in a space dominated by algorithms.
Rather than remaining confined within the bounds of logical intelligence, it is worthwhile to cultivate a focused mind capable of expanding its awareness, transcending cognitive capability to access deeper forms of intuition and ultimately, wisdom. Understanding the heart’s role in expanding our intuitive capacity could help us make better choices, both personally and professionally. The cultivation of mental stillness is shown to enhance emotional clarity and self-awareness, facilitating deeper insight into one’s values and intentions (Pacheco, 2025). This aligns with contemplative psychological frameworks that view inner quietude as a foundation to integrative decision-making and emotional regulation. In managerial contexts, cultivating an inner environment of stillness could allow intuition to emerge clear of ego, ambition, or reactive thinking. AI may inform our decisions, but it is the subtle guidance of the heart anchored in values, compassion, and clarity that enables managers to make choices that serve both people and purpose.
Thus, to summarise, while AI agents serve as valuable tools in supporting rational decision-making, they must be complemented by human presence—centred, aware, and attuned to the wisdom of the heart. The future of management lies not in replacing human judgment with algorithms, but in harmonizing the head and the heart to navigate complexity with grace and purpose. There is no doubt that AI is rapidly reshaping organisations through cognitive technologies. To ensure a balanced evolution, it’s vital to adopt an incremental approach that enhances rather than replaces the human strengths rooted in empathy and intuition. After all, AI may offer intelligence, but not wisdom. It remains the responsibility of executives to exercise emotional intelligence in making decisions that are not only smart, but truly wise. Therefore, as stewards of thoughtful leadership, managers must not only embrace technological innovation but also find ways to continually cultivate emotional intelligence as a core competency for sound, human-centered decision-making.
Dr Vijaya Murthy is a Senior Lecturer in the Discipline of Accounting, Governance & Regulation at The University of Sydney Business School.
References
Boden, M., Bryson, J., Caldwell, D., Dautenhahn, K., Rdwards, L., Kember, S., Newman, P., Parry, V., Pegman, G., Rodden, T., Sorrell, T., Wallis, M., Whitby, B., & Winfield, A. (2017). Peinciples of robotics: regulating robots in real world. Connection Science, 29(2), 124-129.
Bohm, G., & Burn, W. (2008). Intuition and affect in risk perception and decision making. Judgement and Decision Making, 3, 1-4.
Burke, L., & Miller, M. (1999). Taking the mystery out of intuitive decision making. Academy of Management Perspectives, 13, 91-99.
Fetterman, A., & Robinson, M. (2013). Do you use your head or follow your heart? Self-location predicts personality, emotion, decision making and performance. Journal of Personal Social Psychology, 105(2), 316-334.
Guthrie, J. (2023). Letter from Emeritus Professor James Guthrie on Submission 32 Ethics and Professional Accountability: Structural Challenges in the Audit, Assurance and Consultancy Industry. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Corporations_and_Financial_Services/ConsultancyFirms/Submissions
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62, 15-25.
Kini, N. (2025). Human Intelligence, Artificial Intelligence. Heartfulness Magazine, 44-45. https://cdn-prod.heartfulness.org/e-magazines/English/May_25_English/index.html#page=45
McCraty, R. (2001). Science of the Heart. Exploring the role of the Heart in Human Performance. Institute of HeartMath.
Pacheco, C. (2025). Stillness, Silence and Contemplation. A Trilogy of Encounter. Hu Arenas. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-025-00503-z
Raman, A., & Flynn, M. (2024, 14 February, 2024). When your technical skills are eclipsed, your humanity will matter more than ever. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/14/opinion/ai-economy-jobs-colleges.html
Ratnatunga, J. (2024). Management Accounting and Artificial Intelligence—Insights from Eastern and Western Philosophies. The concepts of Self and AI. On Target. https://ontarget.cmaaustralia.edu.au/management-accounting-and-artificial-intelligence-insights-from-eastern-and-western-philosophies/
Roberts, J., Baker, M., & Andrew, J. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and Qualitative Research: The Promise and Perils of Large Language Model (LLM) ‘assistance’. Critical perspectives on Accounting, 99, 1-9.
Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition and decision making. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 433-440.
Soommerfelt, U. (2024). Leading with Heart: The Power of Compassionate Leadership. CEOWorld Magazine. https://ceoworld.biz/2024/10/10/leading-with-heart-the-power-of-compassionate-leadership/ctober.