Will AI replace Administrative Services Managers?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 18 official task statements scored for Administrative Services Managers (United States, SOC 11-3012), 32% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 42 out of 100 (range 36–47, band: partial). 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 “Administrative Services Managers” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Establish work procedures or schedules to organize the daily work of administrative staff” (79/100, high); “Prepare and review operational reports and schedules to ensure accuracy and efficiency” (75/100, high); “Develop operational standards and procedures for the work unit or department” (75/100, 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 “Administrative Services Managers” stay human?

About 52% 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: “Hire and terminate clerical and administrative personnel” (10/100, minimal); “Supervise administrative staff and provide training and orientation to new staff” (13/100, minimal); “Meet with other departmental leaders to establish organizational goals, strategic plans, and objectives, as well as make decisions about personnel, resources…” (13/100, minimal). 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 “Administrative Services Managers” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 32% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 52% 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 Administrative Services Managers 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 18 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.

US dataswitch to UK

Administrative Services Managers

planning, administering, analyzing internal processes and recommending and implementing procedural or policy changes to improve operations and conducting classes to teach procedures to staff. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: preparing and reviewing operational reports and schedules to ensure accuracy and efficiency. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 32%
changing shape: 16%
staying human: 52%

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

Whole-job exposure score 42 out of 100 (36–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 18 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 administrative services managers 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.

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, setting goals and deadlines for the department, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.

Your week, as this page understands it

Plan, direct, or coordinate one or more administrative services of an organization, such as records and information management, mail distribution, and other office support services. The job title says “administrative services managers”. The real job is the part underneath: setting goals and deadlines for the department. 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 administrative services managers is not one task. It is 18 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is setting goals and deadlines for the department, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 32%
changing shape: 16%
staying human: 52%

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.

7 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.
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

6 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.

Preparing and reviewing operational reports and schedules to ensure accuracy and efficiency
This is reading one thing and writing another: operational reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Prepare and review operational reports and schedules to ensure accuracy and efficiency.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 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: Pulling operational reports and schedules together and checking them is desk work software does well.
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 3/4.
Establishing work procedures or schedules to organize the daily work of administrative staff
This is reading one thing and writing another: work procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Establish work procedures or schedules to organize the daily work of administrative staff.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 79 out of 100 (75–83 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: Building rotas and work procedures around known tasks and staff availability is scheduling work software does quickly.
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 3/4.
Developing operational standards and procedures for the work unit or department
This is reading one thing and writing another: operational standards in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Develop operational standards and procedures for the work unit or department.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 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: Standards and procedures follow well-established formats, so software can draft them from how the department already works.
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 3/4.
Managing paper or electronic filing systems by recording information
This is reading one thing and writing another: paper in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Manage paper or electronic filing systems by recording information, updating paperwork, or maintaining documents, such as attendance records or correspondence.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (65–73 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: Electronic filing, records and correspondence are handled well by software; only the paper side needs someone there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

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.

Planning, administering and controlling budgets for contracts, equipment and supplies
The software now makes the first pass at budgets, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Plan, administer, and control budgets for contracts, equipment, and supplies.” (O*NET 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; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Budget planning and tracking is figures work software handles well, with a manager accountable for the final numbers.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Communicating with and providing guidance for external vendors and service providers to ensure the organization
The software now makes the first pass at and providing guidance, 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 not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Communicate with and provide guidance for external vendors and service providers to ensure the organization, department, or work unit's business needs are met.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 47 out of 100 (40–54 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Routine vendor correspondence can be drafted well, but holding suppliers to what they promised depends on an ongoing working relationship.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Learning to operate new office technologies as they
The software now makes the first pass at operate new office technologies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Learn to operate new office technologies as they are developed and implemented.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Getting to grips with new office systems depends partly on hands-on practice with the specific tools in place.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

9 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.

Setting goals and deadlines for the department
The value here is that a specific person handles goals and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Set goals and deadlines for the department.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 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: Software can propose targets, but deadlines a department will actually meet come from knowing the team and getting their agreement.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Analyzing internal processes and recommending and implementing procedural or policy changes to improve operations
The value here is that a specific person handles internal processes and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Analyze internal processes and recommend and implement procedural or policy changes to improve operations, such as supply changes or the disposal of records.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can analyse a process and suggest changes, though making changes stick depends on persuading the people who work them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing or coordinating the supportive services department of a business
The value here is that a specific person handles the supportive services department of a business and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Direct or coordinate the supportive services department of a business, agency, or organization.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Running a department day to day depends on relationships, presence and judgement about people and situations.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 8 tasks

Overseeing payroll functions, such as maintaining timekeeping information and processing and submitting payroll
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: payroll functions in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Oversee payroll functions, such as maintaining timekeeping information and processing and submitting payroll.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (65–73 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Payroll runs on well-defined rules and system data, though someone must be answerable for what is submitted.
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.
Reading through contracts, regulations and procedural guidelines to ensure comprehension and compliance
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: contracts, regulations and procedural guidelines in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Read through contracts, regulations, and procedural guidelines to ensure comprehension and compliance.” (O*NET 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: Reading contracts and regulations to check what applies is document work software does thoroughly and quickly.
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.
Conducting classes to teach procedures to staff
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: classes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Conduct classes to teach procedures to staff.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Training material is easy to produce, but a session where staff ask questions is delivered by a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Acquiring, distributing and storing supplies
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: supplies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Acquire, distribute and store supplies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Ordering is automated, but distributing and storing supplies means moving them around the building.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Representing work unit at meetings or conferences and serving as liaison for requests or complaints
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: work unit, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Represent work unit at meetings or conferences and serve as liaison for requests or complaints.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (10–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Representing your team and handling complaints in the room depends on being present and trusted by the people there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Meeting with other departmental leaders to establish organizational goals
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles other departmental leaders and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Meet with other departmental leaders to establish organizational goals, strategic plans, and objectives, as well as make decisions about personnel, resources, and space or equipment needs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Leadership meetings turn on relationships, reading the room and shared decisions about people and money.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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.
Supervising administrative staff and providing training and orientation to new staff
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles administrative staff and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Supervise administrative staff and provide training and orientation to new staff.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervising and settling in new staff depends on daily contact and a relationship built with each person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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.
Hiring and terminating clerical and administrative personnel
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clerical and administrative personnel, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Hire and terminate clerical and administrative personnel.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Hiring and dismissing people involves judgement about individuals and legal responsibility that a person must carry.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $114,130a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
People doing this job: 263,960in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)

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: operational reports in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing and reviewing operational reports and schedules to ensure accuracy and efficiency and establishing work procedures or schedules to organize the daily work of administrative staff. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what goals run 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

Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Preparing and reviewing operational reports and schedules to ensure accuracy and efficiency is going; setting goals and deadlines for the department is not.

So, given all that: 32% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 16% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 52% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 18 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.

This week: one thing

Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.

What you end up holding: your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
How long it takes: about twenty minutes

If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.

Over the next 90 days

Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (setting goals and deadlines for the department) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.

Over the next 12 months

Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles setting goals and deadlines for the department, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, 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 US occupations to administrative services managers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was secretaries and administrative assistants, except legal, medical, and executive: only about 11% of its durable work is work you already do, it is under the same pressure this job is and it pays 58.3% less. Your own job splits about 32/68: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “set goals and deadlines for the department”, and let the exposed end go.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US 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.

Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “learn to operate new office technologies as they are developed and implemented”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 11% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 11% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 58% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (61/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $47,540 against your $114,130, 58.3% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Facilities 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: “acquire, distribute and store supplies”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 10% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Computer and Information Systems Managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already supervise administrative staff and provide training and orientation to new staff, and their equivalent is to recruit, hire, train and supervise staff, or participate in staffing decisions. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
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: 32% of its task weight, across 18 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
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.

If you run a team doing this job

If you run a team doing this job, the conversation you owe them is the one on this page, and sooner than feels comfortable. Show them the ledger rather than a reassurance: the rows moving toward the software are preparing and reviewing operational reports and schedules to ensure accuracy and efficiency, and the rows that are not are where you want your people visible. Ask each of them to do the this-week move and bring the list to your next one-to-one. It turns a rumour into a piece of work, and it tells you which parts of your team's week are actually at stake. And say the thing out loud that a team lead usually leaves unsaid: a shrinking team is your exposure too, so do the move yourself as well.

You are reading the United States figures

The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Functional managers and directors n.e.c. is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match

The other groups this work is counted across:

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Functional managers and directors n.e.c., Office managers and Property, housing and estate managers. 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.

Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

A nearby route

There's no Space built for administrative services managers 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: running office services, records and requests through one set of shared tools instead of email threads. 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 administrative services managers 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 Administrative Services Managers?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 18 official task statements scored for Administrative Services Managers (United States, SOC 11-3012), 32% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 42 out of 100 (range 36–47, band: partial). 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 “Administrative Services Managers” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Establish work procedures or schedules to organize the daily work of administrative staff” (79/100, high); “Prepare and review operational reports and schedules to ensure accuracy and efficiency” (75/100, high); “Develop operational standards and procedures for the work unit or department” (75/100, 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 “Administrative Services Managers” stay human?: About 52% 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: “Hire and terminate clerical and administrative personnel” (10/100, minimal); “Supervise administrative staff and provide training and orientation to new staff” (13/100, minimal); “Meet with other departmental leaders to establish organizational goals, strategic plans, and objectives, as well as make decisions about personnel, resources…” (13/100, minimal). 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 “Administrative Services Managers” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 32% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 52% 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 Administrative Services Managers 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 18 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

Worth knowing about these figures

The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
7 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.
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: onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: onet-db (im-rt-with-imputed)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-04.
Pay and employment: bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))

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.