Red Flags

During an initial phone screen, there are certain red flags that you should be on the lookout for. If you notice any of these warning signs, it's important to dig deeper and ask follow-up questions to get a better understanding of the applicant's qualifications and fit for the position.

they try to use their phone instead of laptop

five types of bullshit jobs

David Graeber’s Bullshit Jobs categorizes meaningless jobs into five types, each defined by their lack of tangible societal value and their role in perpetuating unnecessary work. Below is a detailed elaboration on each type, grounded in Graeber’s descriptions, with examples and context from the book and related discussions.

1. Flunkies: These are jobs that exist primarily to make someone else—typically a superior—feel or appear important. Flunkies perform tasks that have little intrinsic value and could often be eliminated without consequence. Examples include corporate receptionists who sit at empty desks to project prestige, or personal assistants tasked with trivial errands like fetching coffee. Graeber argues flunkies are a modern equivalent of feudal retainers, hired to inflate the status of executives or organizations. The psychological toll comes from workers knowing their role is ornamental, leading to feelings of irrelevance. For instance, a doorman at a luxury building might open doors that residents could easily open themselves, existing solely to signal exclusivity.

2. Goons: These jobs involve aggressive or manipulative tasks that Graeber sees as socially useless or even harmful. Examples include telemarketers pushing unwanted products, corporate lobbyists influencing policy for profit, or certain salespeople who create artificial demand. Goons exist because competing organizations employ similar roles, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of pointless aggression. Graeber cites the arms race in advertising or lobbying as examples where industries hire goons to counter each other’s goons, contributing little beyond corporate gamesmanship. Workers in these roles often feel conflicted, aware their efforts may exploit or annoy others, yet they’re trapped by economic necessity.

3. Duct Tapers: These workers fix problems that shouldn’t exist or could be avoided with better systems. Their jobs are reactive, patching up flaws in inefficient or poorly designed processes. Examples include software developers constantly debugging rushed code, customer service reps soothing clients upset by corporate errors, or administrative staff handling fallout from mismanagement. Graeber argues duct tapers are a symptom of organizations prioritizing short-term optics over structural fixes. For instance, a bank employee might spend hours correcting errors from faulty automated systems rather than the systems being properly designed. This work feels Sisyphean, as duct tapers know the root issues remain unaddressed.

4. Box Tickers: These jobs involve creating the illusion of productivity or compliance, often through bureaucratic processes that have no real impact. Examples include corporate employees filling out endless reports, consultants producing unread studies, or HR staff enforcing redundant policies. Box tickers thrive in environments obsessed with metrics or regulatory appearances, like universities requiring faculty to submit detailed performance evaluations that no one reviews. Graeber suggests these roles drain morale because workers see through the facade, knowing their efforts are performative. The rise of “audit culture” in institutions fuels this category, prioritizing paperwork over substance.

5. Taskmasters: These are jobs that exist to manage, supervise, or create work for others, often unnecessarily. Taskmasters come in two subtypes: those who assign bullshit tasks (like middle managers creating busywork to justify their role) and those who are themselves bullshit jobs overseeing other bullshit jobs (like directors of pointless initiatives). For example, a manager might demand weekly status reports that serve no purpose, or a corporate strategist might launch vague “innovation projects” that lead nowhere. Graeber sees taskmasters as a byproduct of bloated hierarchies, where layers of management exist to perpetuate themselves, fostering resentment among workers who sense the redundancy.

Graeber’s framework highlights how these roles emerge from a system valuing work for its own sake, not its outcomes. He argues they cause psychological harm—ennui, anxiety, or existential dread—because workers know their efforts are meaningless. Critics, however, question the prevalence of these categories, pointing to studies like the 2021 European Working Conditions Survey, which found only 4.8% of workers felt their jobs were “rarely” or “never” useful, suggesting Graeber’s estimates (up to 50% of jobs) are inflated. X posts often echo this divide: some users resonate with the typology, citing personal experiences in corporate drudgery, while others argue these jobs reflect necessary complexity in modern economies, not just pointless bureaucracy. Graeber’s categories remain a powerful lens for critiquing work culture, even if their scope is debated.

Lack of enthusiasm or interest

If the applicant doesn't seem excited about the position or the company, it could be a sign that they aren't a good fit.

Poor communication skills

If the applicant has trouble expressing themselves clearly or has difficulty answering questions, it could be a sign that they won't be able to communicate effectively on the job.

Inability to meet basic qualifications

If the applicant doesn't have the necessary skills or experience to do the job, it's unlikely that they will be successful in the position.

Negative attitude or lack of accountability

If the applicant blames others for their mistakes or has a negative attitude, it could be a sign that they won't be a good fit for your team.

Inflexibility

If the applicant is unwilling to work the hours required for the position or is unwilling to learn new skills, it could be a sign that they aren't a good fit for the job.

Inconsistent information

If the applicant provides inconsistent or contradictory information during the phone screen, it could be a sign that they aren't being truthful or that they aren't paying attention.

Lack of preparation

If the applicant doesn't seem to know much about the company or the position, it could be a sign that they aren't taking the job seriously.