Will AI replace Company secretaries and administrators?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 19 official task statements scored for Company secretaries and administrators (United Kingdom, SOC 4214), 61% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 61 out of 100 (range 55–67, band: high). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Company secretaries and administrators” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Inform Companies House of any significant changes to the company's share capital, administration or registered address” (88/100, very high); “Prepare legal documents for corporate governance” (88/100, very high); “Arrange appointments for clients and staff across various sectors” (85/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Company secretaries and administrators” stay human?

About 23% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Support the chairperson in ensuring the board functions efficiently and effectively” (21/100, low); “Guide the chairman and the board to operate in accordance with rules and regulations” (21/100, low); “Participate in share issues, mergers, and takeovers” (23/100, low). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Company secretaries and administrators” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 61% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 23% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Company secretaries and administrators calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 19 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

UK dataswitch to US

Company secretaries and administrators

informing Companies House of any significant changes to the company's share capital, guiding the chairman and the board to operate in accordance with rules and regulations and preparing legal documents for corporate governance. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

Most tasks in this job are the kind AI has learned to do: informing Companies House of any significant changes to the company's share capital. The tasks, though, are not you.

Your move: three real directions from here ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 61%
changing shape: 16%
staying human: 23%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 61 out of 100 (55–67 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, across 19 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for company secretaries and administrators is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

It would be a lie to soften that; guiding the chairman and the board to operate in accordance with rules and regulations is what this work rebuilds around. Your move starts there.

Your week, as this page understands it

Company secretaries (excluding professional/chartered company secretaries) file and maintain company records, translate notes and dictation into typewritten form and perform other clerical tasks within commercial organisations. The job title says “company secretaries” or “administrators”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: guiding the chairman and the board to operate in accordance with rules and regulations. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But company secretaries and administrators is not one task. It is 19 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is guiding the chairman and the board to operate in accordance with rules and regulations, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 61%
changing shape: 16%
staying human: 23%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

3 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
ASHE suppresses or does not publish a median for this unit group. We leave it empty rather than interpolating one from sibling groups, which would be a fabricated number.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

12 tasks

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Informing Companies House of any significant changes to the company's share capital
This is reading one thing and writing another: companies house of any significant changes in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 95 · 4214/00
Source: “Inform Companies House of any significant changes to the company's share capital, administration or registered address.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Companies House filings use fixed public forms, so software can prepare and submit them straight from the company records.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Maintaining statutory books, including registers of members and shareholders
This is reading one thing and writing another: statutory books, including registers of members and shareholders in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 4214/00
Source: “Maintain statutory books, including registers of members and shareholders.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping share registers up to date is structured record keeping that company secretarial software already largely automates.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Submitting annual financial reports to Companies House
This is reading one thing and writing another: annual financial reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 4214/00
Source: “Submit annual financial reports to Companies House.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (62–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Filing accounts is done through software already, but the accounts must be properly approved and a competent officer has to stand behind the submission.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Arranging appointments for clients and staff across various sectors
This is reading one thing and writing another: appointments in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 4214/00
Source: “Arrange appointments for clients and staff across various sectors.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 85 out of 100 (81–89 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Booking appointments is scheduling work that online systems already do from start to finish.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.

Changing shape

3 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Organising board meetings and taking minutes for official records
The software now makes the first pass at board meetings, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 4214/00
Source: “Organise board meetings and take minutes for official records.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (35–49 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Scheduling and drafting minutes from a recording is well within reach of AI, though someone usually sits in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing share option schemes and pay dividends
The software now makes the first pass at share option schemes, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 4214/00
Source: “Manage share option schemes and pay dividends.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: The administration and calculations can be automated, but dividends must be properly declared and a competent officer has to stand behind that.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating with external regulators, solicitors and auditors on compliance and advisory matters
The software now makes the first pass at external regulators, solicitors and auditors, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 4214/00
Source: “Coordinate with external regulators, solicitors, and auditors on compliance and advisory matters.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Much of this is structured correspondence AI can draft, but the tricky exchanges with regulators need an accountable person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

4 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Facilitating good communication between the board
The value here is that a specific person handles good communication and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 90 · 4214/00
Source: “Facilitate good communication between the board, committees, senior management, non-executive directors, and shareholders.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Keeping the board, directors and shareholders talking well together depends on personal standing that software cannot supply.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Guiding the chairman and the board to operate in accordance with rules and regulations
The value here is that a specific person handles the chairman and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 4214/00
Source: “Guide the chairman and the board to operate in accordance with rules and regulations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The rules are written down, but steering a chairman in the moment depends on trust built with the board.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supporting the chairperson in ensuring the board functions efficiently and effectively
The value here is that a specific person handles the chairperson and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 4214/00
Source: “Support the chairperson in ensuring the board functions efficiently and effectively.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Papers and agendas can be prepared automatically, but supporting a chair through a difficult board is personal work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Show the other 9 tasks

Preparing legal documents for corporate governance
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: legal documents in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 4214/00
Source: “Prepare legal documents for corporate governance.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Governance documents follow standard precedents, so a first draft comes out well; a lawyer or secretary checks it before use.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Monitoring changes in industry regulations and marketing conditions relevant to the business
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: changes in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 4214/00
Source: “Monitor changes in industry regulations and market conditions relevant to the business.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Regulations and market news are all published, so automated scanning and summarising works well; someone judges what actually matters here.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Drafting confidential letters
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: confidential letters in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 4214/00
Source: “Draft confidential letters.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Drafting a letter, including a sensitive one, is a core strength of writing software, with a manager approving before it goes out.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Submitting articles and information from searches to solicitors for review and approval
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: articles in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 4214/00
Source: “Submit articles and information from searches to solicitors for review and approval for use.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Running searches and packaging the results is retrieval work software does well, and the solicitor reviews and approves before anything is used.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing and distributing invoices to bill clients or pay account expenses
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: invoices in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 50 · 4214/00
Source: “Prepare and distribute invoices to bill clients or pay account expenses.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Producing and sending invoices from records is standard finance software work, with a manager approving before payment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing new policies and procedures in response to government legislation
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: new policies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 4214/00
Source: “Develop new policies and procedures in response to government legislation.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: New legislation is public and policy drafts can be produced from it automatically, but fitting a policy to this organisation needs people who know it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Overseeing the company's payroll system
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: the company's payroll system in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 4214/00
Source: “Oversee the company's payroll system.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Payroll runs on rules and is heavily automated already, though someone must own the checks before people are paid.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Answering telephone calls and directing them appropriately
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: telephone calls in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 4214/00
Source: “Answer telephone calls and direct them appropriately.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Taking calls and routing them is transactional, and automated systems already do much of it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in share issues, mergers and takeovers
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for share issues, mergers and takeovers, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 4214/00
Source: “Participate in share issues, mergers, and takeovers.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Transaction paperwork can be drafted, but deals turn on negotiation and professional judgement from advisers who carry the responsibility.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: No median pay figure is published for this exact group, so there is none here. We would rather show you the gap than a number borrowed from somewhere else.The ONS doesn't publish a reliable pay figure for this exact job (too few people in its survey sample), so none is shown here.
People doing this job: 24,800in the UK, 2026.nomis-aps · Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period)This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: companies house of any significant changes in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: informing Companies House of any significant changes to the company's share capital and maintaining statutory books, including registers of members and shareholders. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what the chairman runs on: someone specific doing it and standing behind it. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

The exposed part of your job is the biggest part, and I am not going to dress that up: informing Companies House of any significant changes to the company's share capital is work today's tools do quickly and cheaply, and that is not coming back.

So, given all that: 61% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 16% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 23% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 19 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

What you have that the software does not is guiding the chairman and the board to operate in accordance with rules and regulations, plus the years of knowing when something looks wrong before you can say why. That is the raw material for everything below.

This week: one thing

Sit on the machine's side of the desk. Pick one real piece of companies house of any significant changes you would normally do yourself, let whatever software you already have take the first pass at it, and then go through what it produced and write down every single thing it got wrong. One evening this week. Do not fix anything yet. Just catch it.

What you end up holding: a written list of the machine’s mistakes, in your handwriting
How long it takes: an evening, or an hour if you pick one job rather than one client

If you can’t run software on your employer’s or your clients’ data: Do the same hunt on paper. Take one printed piece of companies house of any significant changes, work through it the way you always do, and mark every point where you made a call rather than followed a rule. Same evening, same list, nothing to log into and nobody to ask permission from. That list is the same artifact: it is the judgment written down.

Over the next 90 days

Change one sentence about what you do. Not on a CV. Out loud, to whoever pays you. From “my job is informing Companies House of any significant changes to the company's share capital” to “I check what the software does and tell you what it means.” Your error list from this week is what makes that sentence true instead of a claim, so use it: show it once, to one person, inside the next ninety days. Same skills, priced as judgment rather than as typing.

Over the next 12 months

Walk toward the end of this job that answers for things, and get it recognised. Pick the one part of guiding the chairman and the board to operate in accordance with rules and regulations you are already best at, and spend the year making it formal: a qualification, a named responsibility, a specialism people ask for by name. Price it honestly: that is evenings, it is months rather than weeks, and the seats are competitive because everyone in your position is looking at the same door. Before you pay for anything, spend an hour with National Careers Service. It is free and government-funded, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest UK occupations to company secretaries and administrators (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was chief executives and senior officials: only about 6% of its durable work is work you already do. I am not going to pretend that is comfortable news: 61% of your own task list is already in the top exposure band. But the answer on this evidence is not a sideways jump into a job with the same problem. It is to walk toward the end of this one that answers for things. “facilitate good communication between the board, committees, senior management, non-executive directors, and…” is the part that stays with a person, and spending a year getting formally recognised for it beats a standing start somewhere else.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 412 UK occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Chief executives and senior officials
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “facilitate good communication between the board, committees, senior management, non-executive directors, and shareholders”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 6% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Charitable organisation managers and directors
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “facilitate good communication between the board, committees, senior management, non-executive directors, and shareholders”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 5% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Property, housing and estate managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “facilitate good communication between the board, committees, senior management, non-executive directors, and shareholders”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 1% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 1% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 61% of its task weight, across 19 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
“It’s too late for me to become something else”
You are not starting from zero, and the page shows why: guiding the chairman and the board to operate in accordance with rules and regulations is work the software cannot do and you already do it. The move above is a repricing of what you know, not a new career. Nobody who has just left college has that.
“I should learn to code”
Almost certainly not. The value in your job is moving toward checking, deciding and answering for the output, not toward writing the software. A weekend of Python will not change your position; the error list from this week will.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United Kingdom figures

The United States splits this work across more than one official group, of which Court Reporters and Simultaneous Captioners is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United States page →partial match

The other groups this work is counted across:

Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants

In US official statistics this job is counted as Court Reporters and Simultaneous Captioners and Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

Your route through this

Two honest options, and no deadline on either

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

In England:
National Careers Service
A free hour with a government-funded careers adviser is worth more than another evening of reading. In England that's the National Careers Service.
Free, government-funded
- Discover your skills and careers (the skills assessment)
In England:
National Careers Service - Find a course
Search what's actually running near you before you spend anything.
Free to search; individual courses vary
In England:
Free courses for jobs (Level 3 qualifications)
A free Level 3 qualification you already qualify for beats a paid course you don't need.
Free for eligible adults
In England:
Skills Bootcamps
Free, up to 16 weeks, and you get a job interview at the end. In England these are Skills Bootcamps - search what's running near you.
Free for eligible adults in England
- Skills Bootcamps - what they are and who can do them (DfE, Skills for Careers)
- Skills Bootcamps - JobHelp (DWP)
In Scotland:
My World of Work (Skills Development Scotland)
In Scotland it's My World of Work, from Skills Development Scotland.
Free, publicly funded
- Skills Development Scotland
In Wales:
Careers Wales
In Wales it's Careers Wales.
Free, Welsh Government-funded
In Northern Ireland:
Careers Service Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland it's the Careers Service on nidirect.
Free, Department for the Economy-funded

A nearby route

There's no Space built for company secretaries and administrators yet.

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

The closest match is Microsoft 365 Productivity Workers, a community for coordinators, administrators and team leads who run their working day in Outlook, Teams, meetings, files and task lists. It overlaps with the part of your job that is growing: board papers, meeting actions and document control as one system. It does not cover company law or filings. If that overlap isn't you, the free route below covers the same ground.

Try Microsoft 365 Productivity Workers free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

After the trial it is a paid community, and you get identical data either way. If the overlap above is not your job, the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for company secretaries and administrators launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Company secretaries and administrators?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 19 official task statements scored for Company secretaries and administrators (United Kingdom, SOC 4214), 61% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 61 out of 100 (range 55–67, band: high). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Company secretaries and administrators” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Inform Companies House of any significant changes to the company's share capital, administration or registered address” (88/100, very high); “Prepare legal documents for corporate governance” (88/100, very high); “Arrange appointments for clients and staff across various sectors” (85/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Company secretaries and administrators” stay human?: About 23% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Support the chairperson in ensuring the board functions efficiently and effectively” (21/100, low); “Guide the chairman and the board to operate in accordance with rules and regulations” (21/100, low); “Participate in share issues, mergers, and takeovers” (23/100, low). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Company secretaries and administrators” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 61% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 23% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Company secretaries and administrators calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 19 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

The ONS doesn't publish a reliable pay figure for this exact job (too few people in its survey sample), so none is shown here.
This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
3 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
ASHE suppresses or does not publish a median for this unit group. We leave it empty rather than interpolating one from sibling groups, which would be a fabricated number.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: gaisi-indexProcessing: catalogue-bridge → ssc-relatedness-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: gaisi-index (relatedness)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: no pay figure published for this groupnomis-aps (Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.