Article: Tuesday 13 October
Experienced auditors may become less willing to use AI-supported advice in their work because it makes them feel that their expertise is no longer valued. But just a simple reminder of the strengths they already bring to the profession can make them more open to high-quality advice that relies on AI, according to research by Dr Christian Pietsch, Assistant Professor at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University (RSM). “AI adoption is not just about better tools or more training. It is also about whether professionals feel that the expertise they have built over years is still respected.”
Audit firms are investing heavily in AI, data analytics, and digital transformation so there’s an accompanying growth in messages about upskilling, reskilling, and not being left behind – but those messages may have an unintended side effect on accounting professionals. Much of the messaging around these developments emphasises the need for auditors to make sure their skills are up to date to avoid being left behind. It can leave these professionals feeling that their expertise – which has helped them succeed for years – is now valued less.
“We wanted to understand whether this feeling affects their professional judgment,” said Dr Pietsch. “Specifically, we studied whether auditors become more defensive about advice from specialists when that advice relies heavily on AI. This matters because the quality of audits increasingly depends not only on whether firms have good technology, but also on whether professionals are willing to use technology-supported insights appropriately.”
The paper, Coping With Changing Skill Requirements: Does Disaffirmation Versus Affirmation Affect Auditors' Reliance on AI-Supported Advice From Specialists? was published in March 2026 in Contemporary Accounting Research. Co-authors are Prof. Mark E. Peecher; Dr Sebastian Stirnkorb; and PhD candidate Isaac L. Yamoah, all from the Gies College of Business, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign.
“On a broader level, I care about this because the adoption of AI is often discussed as a technical challenge,” says Dr Pietsch. “Our study shows that it is also a human and organisational challenge. When digital transformation is framed mainly by what professionals lack, firms may inadvertently make people less receptive to the expertise and tools they are trying to promote.”
The researchers ran two experiments with highly experienced auditors from large international audit firms. In both experiments, auditors worked on a realistic case involving a client’s valuation estimate and received advice from a valuation specialist.
Before making the audit judgement, the auditors ranked eight professional skills from their strongest to their weakest. The researchers then randomly assigned them to reflect in writing either on their strongest-ranked skill, creating a self-affirmation condition, or on their weakest-ranked skill, creating a disaffirmation condition. The auditors therefore identified their own relative strengths and weaknesses, but did not choose which condition they entered.
In the first experiment, the researchers also varied how the specialist arrived at the advice. Some auditors received advice from a specialist who relied more heavily on AI and advanced data analytics, while others received advice from the same specialist relying more heavily on traditional business-valuation expertise. Importantly, the specialist reached the same ultimate recommendation in both cases.
The researchers then measured how much the auditors adjusted their own judgement towards the specialist’s advice. When the specialist relied heavily on AI, auditors who had first reflected on their strongest skill placed more weight on the advice than auditors who had reflected on their weakest skill. The second experiment, in which all auditors received highly AI-reliant specialist advice, added a neutral control group and showed that affirmed auditors were also more receptive to the advice than auditors who had received neither the affirmation nor the disaffirmation intervention.
The researchers found that auditors became less receptive to AI-supported advice if they had just been reminded of their weaker skills in a profession that increasingly emphasises digital capabilities.
“Their reaction was not simply about the technical merits of the advice,” said Dr Pietsch. “When auditors reflected on their weakest skills, they became more critical of both the specialist giving the advice, and the advice given when the specialist relied more heavily on AI, even though the advice itself had not changed.”
And this could have an important effect because investors, creditors, regulators, and the public rely on audited financial statements. If auditors fail to use relevant high-quality advice because they are defensively reacting to AI or to AI-savvy specialists, audit judgements may suffer.
“Most importantly, we found that this defensive reaction could be reduced. When auditors first reflected on their existing professional strengths, they were more open to the specialist’s AI-supported advice. One surprising finding was that affirming auditors’ traditional strengths did not make them more closed-minded. Instead, it made them less defensive and more willing to incorporate useful advice.”
Dr Pietsch says these findings present a practical lesson: successful adoption of AI requires more than just investing in the technology. “Organisations also need to manage how people experience technological change,” he says.
For auditors and other firms providing professional services, this means paying close attention to the language used in training, recruiting, internal communication, and in leadership messages.
Messages such as ‘don’t get left behind’ or ‘the future belongs to a new kind of professional’ may motivate some people, but experienced professionals could feel that their accumulated expertise is being dismissed. That can create defensiveness, especially when the advice comes from people or systems associated with new technology.
A more constructive approach is to present AI as a tool that helps auditors apply their professional judgment in new ways, rather than as a signal that their existing expertise has become less relevant, suggests Dr Pietsch. Firms can emphasise how AI and advanced analytics complement existing professional judgment rather than making traditional expertise obsolete.
Experienced auditors still bring their deep knowledge of clients, their professional scepticism, judgement, technical accounting and auditing expertise, and an understanding of context. “These are precisely the strengths that help professionals use AI-supported advice well.”
The broader message applies beyond auditing. Any organisation introducing AI should consider whether its communications make experienced employees feel empowered, or threatened. “If employees feel secure in what they already contribute, they may be more willing to learn, collaborate, and use AI-supported insights responsibly.”
Dr Pietsch’s research helps businesses understand how to improve the human side of AI adoption. Better use of AI-supported advice can support better professional judgement, stronger audits, and more reliable financial reporting. More generally, this study shows how organisations can introduce new technologies in a way that respects experienced professionals rather than making them feel obsolete.
This is important because society increasingly depends on professionals working effectively with advanced technologies. The goal should not be blind trust in AI, but thoughtful, balanced use of AI-supported evidence and advice.
Dr Pietsch envisions his research findings could be adapted for use in AI training, specialist collaboration workshops, audit methodology training, or leadership communication for digital transformation, particularly for audit firms, professional bodies, and training departments.
Professionals’ reactions to AI depend partly on whether or not they feel respected, valued, and secure in their existing expertise.
When experienced auditors feel that their traditional expertise is being devalued, they may become less receptive to AI-supported advice.
People’s aversion to AI is not limited to their direct interactions with an algorithm. They can also avoid advice that comes from a human specialist but has been supported by AI.
When auditors reflected on their strongest professional skills, they became more open to AI-supported specialist advice.
Messages about upskilling and digital transformation should motivate people to start learning without implying that experienced professionals’ existing skills are obsolete.
Dr Pietsch summarised the contributions the study makes towards 4 of the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):
Understanding how professionals adapt to changing demands for skills and how organisations can support employees during technological transformation supports SDG 8: Decent work and economic growth
Understanding how firms can responsibly integrate AI and advanced analytics into professional work supports SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
The research contributes to supporting better audit judgements and the reliability of financial reporting contributes to stronger institutions and more trustworthy markets for SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
The findings have implications for professional training, lifelong learning, and how organisations design education around AI and digital skills, supporting SDG 4: Quality Education
Coping With Changing Skill Requirements: Does Disaffirmation Versus Affirmation Affect Auditors' Reliance on AI-Supported Advice From Specialists? published in March 2026 in Contemporary Accounting Research.
Three articles based on Dr Pietch’s work have already been published:
Science Communication and Media Officer
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University (RSM) is one of Europe’s top-ranked business schools. RSM provides ground-breaking research and education furthering excellence in all aspects of management and is based in the international port city of Rotterdam – a vital nexus of business, logistics and trade. RSM’s primary focus is on developing business leaders with international careers who can become a force for positive change by carrying their innovative mindset into a sustainable future. Our first-class range of bachelor, master, MBA, PhD and executive programmes encourage them to become to become critical, creative, caring and collaborative thinkers and doers.
