Today, the question of whether a job is “pointless” is no longer just a philosophical debate for anthropologists. The question has become an urgent survival manual, as AI begins to automate many of the tasks we once used to prove our worth.

Consider the categories of pointless jobs Graeber identified:

1. Box Tickers — Used to create the appearance of productivity or compliance.
2. Flunkies — Exist only to make their superiors feel or look important.
3. Goons — Necessary only because other people have them.
4. Duct Tapers — Hired to fix problems that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
5. Taskmasters — Middle managers who create extra work for others.

You’re thinking about which category you belong to right now, aren’t you? I know I did. As an Internal Auditor, I dove into the rabbit hole of Graeber’s research and his critics and stumbled upon this gem from “The Jolly Contrarian” (paraphrased for brevity, with emphasis added): 

Internal Audit: now that is a bullshit job: these people must turn stones, analyse data, write PowerPoint presentations, jockey spreadsheets, and sanction systems against which they measure KPIs and deliverables.

In the weeds which are their natural habitat, these are perfectly sensible, prudent, and plausible means of managing systemic risk. From a bird’s eye view, they disappear altogether, but render as a grey, sticky sheen over the whole organisation. In performing their role, Internal Auditors consume not only their own and external resources, but those of the other employees... That is bullshit squared, especially if they’re auditing other people who themselves are carrying out largely bullshitty roles.

Oh Jolly One, them’s fightin’ words. That said, I will admit that these words made me laugh, and that I promptly emailed a link to the article to many of my Internal Auditor friends. Misery does love company.

How Do You Define “Bullshit”? 

This concept of a job being “bullshit” is based on a theory that society would be no worse off (or even notice) if such a job disappeared. Ostensibly, people working in these types of jobs do not believe their roles contribute meaningfully to the world — and they do not personally find their jobs fulfilling.

For the record, I do not hold those feelings about being an Internal Audit professional. On most days, I find my work to be both fulfilling and contributive to the world’s benefit. However, we would be foolish not to consider what the future of our chosen profession will look like in this new world of AI. How does our work contribute to the world, and is it truly meaningful if most of it can be automated away? Some seem to think so. But does that imply that it was all bullshit anyway?

I recently heard Richard Susskind — who is, among other things, a renowned author, journalist, and the IT advisor to the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales — speak about the future of work in the AI age. He spoke at length about the importance of how we deliver our expertise, and recommended considering the fundamental value our profession brings to the world in the age of AI. 

I suggest we do exactly that.

What Are Humans For?

Susskind challenged the audience to answer this question: “How in the future will businesses solve problems for which your profession is the answer?” With AI, what will it look like in three, five, or ten years? 

You cannot answer this question without seriously considering the fundamental value Internal Auditors bring to bear. As Susskind asked, “Can you boil it down to its essence?” 

How often do we pause and truly consider these philosophical questions? Now is the time to do so.

Susskind offered an example for the audience to ponder. Consider neurosurgeons today. The future, with AI, will not include invasive therapy like surgery. We won’t place the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff; rather, we will place a fence at the top of the cliff. In other words, AI will give a neurosurgeon patient far more information in advance to help them avoid surgery. So, what will be the need for a neurosurgeon in three, five, or ten years? 

THAT is the specific question that neurosurgeons need to consider. Which leads me to the broader question Internal Auditors must ponder:

What is the inherent value we bring to the profession of Internal Auditing as humans that AI cannot replace?

If we evaluate our profession’s current use of AI, it is largely centered on gaining efficiencies through automation. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. But in doing so, are we paradoxically proving out the bullshit in our jobs?

The World Economic Forum’s (WEF’s) most recent Future of Jobs Report predicted that accountants and auditors, along with business service and administrative managers — all bullshit jobs, according to Graeber — will have decreased job demand between 2025 and 2030. The #1 technology trend driving this change? AI and information processing technologies, followed closely by robots and autonomous systems. 

Automation is coming for us, Internal Auditors! But if the machines take over the processing, who is left to do the thinking?

Facts Need a Human Filter: Do You Want to Be Right or Get It Right?

Internal Auditors must be independent and objective truth tellers. Ideally, we say what needs to be said when our organizations are at risk. 

Presumably, AI could be far more independent and objective than us humans, given the same set of facts. It would not be constrained by emotions and office politicking. All things being equal, the AI auditor could present the cold hard facts, and management would be able to act upon them. 

So, the question becomes — what is really left for an Internal Auditor to do if most of their work is fully automated? What value are they adding to the organization? 

As a leader, I have often summarized a professional career pathway as follows: You begin as an individual who is assigned tasks which you execute under someone’s direction and guidance. Later, you assign tasks to others. After that, you develop and lead others as individuals until ultimately, you do that with teams. In the beginning, you need basic knowledge and skills. Over time, you develop abilities — things like analytical thinking, self-awareness, negotiation skills, and so on. 

Unfortunately, such abilities cannot be taught. They are learned over time, through keen observation and learning agility. You need to make mistakes and ask, receive, and act upon feedback which considers human interpretation. Can a robot or an algorithm do that? No. At least not yet.

So what happens when the cold hard facts arrive and there isn’t any analytical thinking behind them? 

Imagine that an AI auditor in a biotech research company delivers a report which recommends immediate termination of a vaccine project to prevent insolvency because the firm spent millions on a specific chemical compound which resulted in no saleable product and 90% of the staff hours were spent on “zero market-ready” solutions. Of course, the reality of biotech R&D is that a 95% failure rate is normal. This is the scientific process at work. The labor hours weren’t wasted. Those PhDs documented why the trial didn’t work, creating intellectual property vital to future patents.

One could see this AI auditor becoming ignored and losing value over time. As I have often asked my team: “Do you want to be right, or do you want to get it right?”

Perhaps that is what Susskind meant when he recommended finding the essence of what you do:

• What is the humanity in your work? How can we highlight that? 
• Does it start when we identify the moment when a spreadsheet simply isn’t enough? 
• Is it the moment when a human begins to deploy their curiosity, empathy, or even their organizational social influence?

The Human in the Loop

I don’t have all the answers to these deeply personal and philosophical questions of how Internal Auditors add humanity to our profession. I am just starting to consider them myself. 

Graeber passed away in 2020, two years before OpenAI’s public launch of ChatGPT marked the start of our new AI age. So there’s no way to know what answers he might suggest. Still, I’m confident he’d remain interested in separating the meaning from the bullshit. 

To anchor our thinking, we can refer again to the WEF’s Future of Jobs Report, which noted 26 core human skills to develop — presumably to augment our skills in this world of AI. 

Below are five of the top eight core skills the WEF report highlighted, as well as prompts to spur our thinking. What would you add? What is the essence of what you bring to bear in your work?

1. Analytical Thinking

How often do you synthesize results from different areas to tell one holistic story?

Can you take disparate information to determine a root cause that may be a systemic cultural failure rather than one rooted in data alone? 

2. Resilience, Flexibility, and Agility

What part of your work involves channeling strengths like dealing with difficult people?

When you work with someone who cannot seem to get anything done and their lack of progress impedes your project, do you know how to sit with them, channel your curiosity, state the facts, and pose a solution that invites them into the conversation?

3. Leadership and Social Influence 

How much of your legacy comes from inspiring others? Building a culture of belonging? Igniting their love of learning?

Are you able to create an environment for team members that celebrates their unique backgrounds and contributions? 

4. Empathy and Active Listening

As a leader — and we are ALL leaders — can you recall a time when you “read the room” and spoke up because it was the right thing to do for a human being?

Do you speak up when you observe a colleague taking credit for something another colleague previously said or did? 

What part of your work involves understanding what IS said and HOW it is said?

When a seemingly innocuous issue is discussed and a colleague is defensive and raising their voice or changing their story when it isn’t called for, can you infer a deeper meaning from that behavior?

5. Curiosity and Lifelong Learning

Can you think of a time when your role caused you to make a difficult decision based on your ethics and values — rather than making the decision based on data or what would’ve been an easy choice?

If you observed a pattern of spending (based on your experience alone) that isn’t technically a violation of policy but appeared unusual, and realized it was fraud involving a senior executive, could you resolve that?

Internal Auditors Find Meaning in the Bullshit

I think Bullshit Jobs is fundamentally correct in terms of its humanity. People should feel that their work matters, and that it matters to society. Does all work feel that way all the time? Of course not. That doesn’t mean it’s bullshit. 

Humans need Internal Auditors. You know why? Because humans get into bullshit (e.g., overriding policies and procedures, stealing, taking risks that place the organization in jeopardy) when there are no rules. Look at history. Box-tickers Internal Auditors aren’t going to save everyone, but our humanity is the secret sauce we bring to stopping the bullshit and advocating for the good shit. 

About the Author

Anne DeTraglia is proud to be a career Internal Audit professional. She is a Chief Audit Executive, a Certified Internal Auditor, a Certified Fraud Examiner, and has held senior leadership roles at Fortune 100 companies. She is a frequent speaker for The Institute of Internal Auditors, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, the Institute of Management Accountants, and the Internal Audit Collective, and has appeared on various webcasts, including The Audit Podcast with Trent Russell, Count Me In with Adam Larson, and Ethico with Nick Gallo and Matt Kelly. And Anne is no bullshitter.

‍