Will AI replace Chief Executives?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 49 official task statements scored for Chief Executives (United States, SOC 11-1011), 43% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 53 out of 100 (range 48–59, 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 “Chief Executives” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Create and maintain sustainability program documents, such as schedules and budgets” (93/100, very high); “Review and analyze legislation, laws, or public policy and recommend changes to promote or support interests of the general population or special groups” (83/100, very high); “Write and distribute financial or environmental impact reports” (81/100, 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 “Chief Executives” stay human?

About 28% 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: “Preside over, or serve on, boards of directors, management committees, or other governing boards” (5/100, minimal); “Represent organizations or promote their objectives at official functions, or delegate representatives to do so” (9/100, minimal); “Conduct or direct investigations or hearings to resolve complaints or violations of laws, or testify at such hearings” (11/100, 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 “Chief Executives” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 43% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 28% 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 Chief Executives 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 49 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

Chief Executives

directing or coordinating an organization's financial or budget activities to fund operations, nominating citizens to boards or commissions and developing sustainability reports. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

This job is splitting in two: creating and maintaining sustainability program documents is work AI now does quickly and cheaply, and supervising employees or volunteers working on sustainability projects is work it can't touch.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 43%
changing shape: 29%
staying human: 28%

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

Whole-job exposure score 53 out of 100 (48–59 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 49 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 chief executives 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.

Which half fills your week decides your exposure. The ledger below shows which rows you can move toward.

Your week, as this page understands it

Determine and formulate policies and provide overall direction of companies or private and public sector organizations within guidelines set up by a board of directors or similar governing body. Plan, direct, or coordinate operational activities at the highest level of management with the help of subordinate executives and staff managers. The job title says “chief executives”. The real job is the part underneath: supervising employees or volunteers working on sustainability projects. 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 chief executives is not one task. It is 49 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is supervising employees or volunteers working on sustainability projects, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 43%
changing shape: 29%
staying human: 28%

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.

4 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

20 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.

Monitoring and evaluating effectiveness of sustainability programs
This is reading one thing and writing another: effectiveness of sustainability programs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Monitor and evaluate effectiveness of sustainability programs.” (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: Measuring whether sustainability programs are working uses recorded data and documented methods.
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.
Analyzing operations to evaluate performance of a company or its staff in meeting objectives or to determine areas of potential cost reduction
This is reading one thing and writing another: operations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Analyze operations to evaluate performance of a company or its staff in meeting objectives or to determine areas of potential cost reduction, program improvement, or policy change.” (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: Comparing performance against objectives and finding savings is analysis of data the business already keeps.
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.
Developing sustainability reports, presentations or proposals for supplier, employee, academia, media, government, public interest or other groups
This is reading one thing and writing another: sustainability reports, presentations or proposals in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop sustainability reports, presentations, or proposals for supplier, employee, academia, media, government, public interest, or other groups.” (O*NET 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: Sustainability reports and presentations are document work software produces well, with figures checked afterwards.
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 budgets for approval, including those for funding or implementation of programs
This is reading one thing and writing another: budgets in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Prepare budgets for approval, including those for funding or implementation of programs.” (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: Building a budget from historical figures and plans is number 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.

Changing shape

13 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.

Developing or executing strategies to address issues
The software now makes the first pass at strategies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop or execute strategies to address issues such as energy use, resource conservation, recycling, pollution reduction, waste elimination, transportation, education, and building design.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 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: Strategies draft easily, but actually changing how energy, waste and buildings are managed takes someone driving it.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing or overseeing the development
The software now makes the first pass at the development, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop, or oversee the development of, sustainability evaluation or monitoring systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 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: Monitoring systems can be specified from published frameworks, though fitting them to the organization takes judgment.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing, planning or implementing policies, objectives or activities of organizations or businesses to ensure continuing operations
The software now makes the first pass at policies, objectives or activities of organizations or businesses, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Direct, plan, or implement policies, objectives, or activities of organizations or businesses to ensure continuing operations, to maximize returns on investments, or to increase productivity.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 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: Strategy documents draft easily, but setting an organization's direction is a call a leader answers for.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

16 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.

Supervising employees or volunteers working on sustainability projects
The value here is that a specific person handles employees and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Supervise employees or volunteers working on sustainability projects.” (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 employees and volunteers depends on a personal working relationship on the ground.
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.
Appointing department heads or managers and assigning or delegating responsibilities to them
The value here is that a specific person handles department heads and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Appoint department heads or managers and assign or delegate responsibilities to them.” (O*NET 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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Appointing managers and handing them responsibility is an act of authority, not a document.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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.
Implementing corrective action plans to solve organizational or departmental problems
The value here is that a specific person handles corrective action plans and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Implement corrective action plans to solve organizational or departmental problems.” (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: A corrective plan is easy to write, but making it stick inside an organization depends on the person driving it.
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.

Show the other 39 tasks

Creating and maintaining sustainability program documents
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: sustainability program documents in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Create and maintain sustainability program documents, such as schedules and budgets.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 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: Schedules and budget documents are exactly the kind of paperwork software creates and keeps current.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing and analyzing legislation, laws or public policy and recommending changes to promote or support interests of the general population or special groups
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: legislation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Review and analyze legislation, laws, or public policy and recommend changes to promote or support interests of the general population or special groups.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 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: Laws and public policy are published in full, and analyzing them for effects is close reading 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 4/4.
Writing and distributing financial or environmental impact reports
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: financial or environmental impact reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Write and distribute financial or environmental impact reports.” (O*NET 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: Writing and circulating impact reports is document work, with the figures signed off separately.
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.
Directing or conducting studies or researching on issues affecting areas of responsibility
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: studies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Direct or conduct studies or research on issues affecting areas of responsibility.” (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: Commissioning and running studies on business issues is research and analysis software handles quickly.
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.
Organizing or approving promotional campaigns
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: promotional campaigns in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Organize or approve promotional campaigns.” (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: Campaign plans and creative briefs draft quickly using material the organization already holds.
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.
Identifying and evaluating pilot projects or programs to enhance the sustainability research agenda
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: pilot projects in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Identify and evaluate pilot projects or programs to enhance the sustainability research agenda.” (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: Screening and comparing possible pilot projects is analysis against documented criteria.
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.
Reviewing sustainability program objectives, progress or status to ensure compliance with policies, standards, regulations or laws
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: sustainability program objectives, progress or status in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Review sustainability program objectives, progress, or status to ensure compliance with policies, standards, regulations, or laws.” (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: Checking program progress against policies and regulations is document comparison software handles 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.
Researching environmental sustainability issues, concerns or stakeholder interests
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: environmental sustainability issues, concerns or stakeholder interests in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Research environmental sustainability issues, concerns, or stakeholder interests.” (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: Researching environmental issues and stakeholder views is reading and summarizing, which software does quickly.
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.
Developing or overseeing the development
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: the development in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop, or oversee the development of, marketing or outreach media for sustainability projects or events.” (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: Outreach and marketing material is drafted quickly from the program's own information.
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.
Developing methodologies to assess the viability or success of sustainability initiatives
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: methodologies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop methodologies to assess the viability or success of sustainability initiatives.” (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: Building an assessment method follows published frameworks, which software can adapt to the program.
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.
Preparing bylaws approved by elected officials
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: bylaws in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Prepare bylaws approved by elected officials, and ensure that bylaws are enforced.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 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: Bylaws follow published models, so drafting them is straightforward; enforcement then runs through set procedures.
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 4/4.
Interpreting and explaining policies, rules, regulations or laws to organizations, government or corporate officials or individuals
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: policies, rules, regulations or laws in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Interpret and explain policies, rules, regulations, or laws to organizations, government or corporate officials, or individuals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 70 out of 100 (66–74 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: Rules, policies and laws are published text, so explaining what they mean is a genuine strength.
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 4/4.
Conducting risk assessments related to sustainability and the environment
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: risk assessments in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Conduct risk assessments related to sustainability and the environment.” (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: Risk assessment follows published frameworks and recorded data, though someone qualified normally signs the result.
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.
Preparing or presenting reports concerning activities
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: reports concerning activities in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Prepare or present reports concerning activities, expenses, budgets, government statutes or rulings, or other items affecting businesses or program services.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Reports on activities, spending and rules draft well from existing records; presenting them still involves a person.
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.
Coordinating the development or implementation of budgetary control systems
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: the development in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Coordinate the development or implementation of budgetary control systems, recordkeeping systems, or other administrative control processes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Designing budget controls and record systems follows documented practice that software can lay out.
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.
Identifying educational, training or other development opportunities for sustainability employees or volunteers
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: educational, training or other development opportunities in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Identify educational, training, or other development opportunities for sustainability employees or volunteers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Finding relevant training and development options is searching and matching against documented offerings.
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.
Writing project proposals, grant applications or other documents to pursue funding for environmental initiatives
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at project proposals, grant applications or other documents, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Write project proposals, grant applications, or other documents to pursue funding for environmental initiatives.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 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: Funding bids need tailoring to each funder's priorities and history, so drafts usually need substantial rework.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Formulating or implementing sustainability campaign or marketing strategies
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at sustainability campaign, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Formulate or implement sustainability campaign or marketing strategies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 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: Campaign strategy drafts easily, but putting it into practice across an organization needs someone leading it.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing reports submitted by staff members to recommend approval or to suggest changes
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at reports, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Review reports submitted by staff members to recommend approval or to suggest changes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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 staff reports and suggesting changes is document work software does well, with the manager taking the final call.
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.
Referring major policy matters to elected representatives for final decisions
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at major policy matters, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Refer major policy matters to elected representatives for final decisions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Preparing and passing papers up for a political decision is routine written work; the decision itself stays with elected members.
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 2/4.
Directing or coordinating an organization's financial or budget activities to fund operations
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at an organization's financial or budget activities, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Direct or coordinate an organization's financial or budget activities to fund operations, maximize investments, or increase efficiency.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 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: Financial analysis is easily produced, but directing where an organization's money goes is a decision someone owns.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing or coordinating activities of businesses or departments concerned with production
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at activities of businesses, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Direct or coordinate activities of businesses or departments concerned with production, pricing, sales, or distribution of products.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 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: Coordination can be supported by systems, but running production, pricing and sales rests on a leader's decisions.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Establishing departmental responsibilities and coordinating functions among departments and sites
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at departmental responsibilities, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Establish departmental responsibilities and coordinate functions among departments and sites.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 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: Structures can be mapped on paper, but deciding who owns what across an organization is a leader's call.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing non-merchandising departments, such as advertising, purchasing, credit or accounting
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at departments, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Direct non-merchandising departments, such as advertising, purchasing, credit, or accounting.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 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: Departmental reporting can be automated, but directing advertising, purchasing or accounting teams is a manager's job.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating and approving proposals for sustainability projects
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at proposals, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Evaluate and approve proposals for sustainability projects, considering factors such as cost effectiveness, technical feasibility, and integration with other initiatives.” (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: Approving a proposal is a judgement about cost and fit that someone in the organisation has to own.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Directing sustainability program operations to ensure compliance with environmental or governmental regulations
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at sustainability program operations, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Direct sustainability program operations to ensure compliance with environmental or governmental regulations.” (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: Compliance tracking is well supported by software, but someone must answer for the organization meeting the rules.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Delivering speeches, write articles or presenting information at meetings or conventions to promote services, exchange ideas or accomplish objectives
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles speeches, write articles or presenting information and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Deliver speeches, write articles, or present information at meetings or conventions to promote services, exchange ideas, or accomplish objectives.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low 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: Speeches and articles draft well, though delivering them at a conference is still someone standing up.
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 3/4.
Administering programs for selection of sites
staying human
The ratings behind this row put programs well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Administer programs for selection of sites, construction of buildings, or provision of equipment or supplies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low 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: Comparing sites and specifying equipment is desk work, but choosing premises usually involves visiting them.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing or coordinating activities of businesses involved with buying or selling investment products or financial services
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for activities of businesses, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Direct or coordinate activities of businesses involved with buying or selling investment products or financial services.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 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 rating behind it: Investment and financial services businesses must be run by licensed people, whatever analysis software provides.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Negotiating or approving contracts or agreements with suppliers
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles contracts and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Negotiate or approve contracts or agreements with suppliers, distributors, federal or state agencies, or other organizational entities.” (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 same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Contract drafts come easily, but negotiating terms with a supplier or agency happens between people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Making presentations to legislative or other government committees regarding policies
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles presentations and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Make presentations to legislative or other government committees regarding policies, programs, or budgets.” (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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The briefing pack writes easily, but appearing before a committee means a person answering questions live.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing human resources activities
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles human resources activities and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Direct human resources activities, including the approval of human resource plans or activities, the selection of directors or other high-level staff, or establishment or organization of major departments.” (O*NET 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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Choosing senior leaders and reshaping departments is judgment about specific people, rarely written down anywhere.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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.
Conferring with board members, organization officials or staff members to discuss issues, coordinate activities or resolve problems
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles board members, organization officials or staff members and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Confer with board members, organization officials, or staff members to discuss issues, coordinate activities, or resolve problems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 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: The work is the conversation with board members and staff, which depends on standing and trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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.
Serving as liaisons between organizations
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles liaisons and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Serve as liaisons between organizations, shareholders, and outside organizations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 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: Acting as the link between an organization and its shareholders depends on a person others know and trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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.
Attending and participating in meetings of municipal councils or council committees
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles meetings of municipal councils and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Attend and participate in meetings of municipal councils or council committees.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal 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: Taking part in council meetings means being there and speaking, even though papers can be prepared beforehand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Nominating citizens to boards or commissions
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for citizens, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Nominate citizens to boards or commissions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (10–24 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium 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: Nominating people to public boards is an official act by a named person who knows the local candidates.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting or directing investigations or hearings to resolve complaints or violations of laws
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for investigations, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Conduct or direct investigations or hearings to resolve complaints or violations of laws, or testify at such hearings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium 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: Hearings and sworn testimony require a person who can be held to account for what is said.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Representing organizations or promoting their objectives at official functions
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: organizations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Represent organizations or promote their objectives at official functions, or delegate representatives to do so.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium 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: Turning up at official functions on an organization's behalf is about a person being seen and known.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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.
Presiding over or serving on boards of directors, management committees or other governing boards
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for this work, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Preside over, or serve on, boards of directors, management committees, or other governing boards.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 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: Sitting on a board is a role the law gives to a named person, who answers for the decisions.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · 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: $213,990a 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: 204,350in 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: sustainability program documents in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: creating and maintaining sustainability program documents and monitoring and evaluating effectiveness of sustainability programs. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what employees 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. Creating and maintaining sustainability program documents is going; supervising employees or volunteers working on sustainability projects is not.

So, given all that: 43% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 29% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 28% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 49 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 (supervising employees or volunteers working on sustainability projects) 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 supervising employees or volunteers working on sustainability projects, 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 chief executives (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was general and operations managers: only about 11% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 50.6% less. Your own job splits about 43/57: 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 “develop or execute strategies to address issues”, 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.

General and Operations Managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already direct or coordinate activities of businesses or departments concerned with production, pricing, sales…, and their equivalent is to direct and coordinate activities of businesses or departments concerned with the production, pricing…. Across both published task lists that is about 11% of the durable work in that job.
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. It is a pay cut, in those words: $105,770 against your $213,990, 50.6% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Financial Managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already direct or coordinate an organization's financial or budget activities to fund operations, maximize…, and their equivalent is to manage investment funds to maximize return on client investments. 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. It is a pay cut, in those words: $166,570 against your $213,990, 22.2% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Business Operations Specialists, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already develop methodologies to assess the viability or success of sustainability initiatives, and their equivalent is to develop sustainability project goals, objectives, initiatives, or strategies in collaboration with other sustainability…. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 60% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (62/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $83,050 against your $213,990, 61.2% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
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: 43% of its task weight, across 49 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 creating and maintaining sustainability program documents, 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 Chief executives and senior officials 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

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Chief executives and senior officials. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

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

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for chief executives, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 43% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

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

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for chief executives. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for chief executives 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 Space for chief executives yet. Should there be one?

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

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for chief executives existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for chief executives launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

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 Chief Executives?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 49 official task statements scored for Chief Executives (United States, SOC 11-1011), 43% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 53 out of 100 (range 48–59, 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 “Chief Executives” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Create and maintain sustainability program documents, such as schedules and budgets” (93/100, very high); “Review and analyze legislation, laws, or public policy and recommend changes to promote or support interests of the general population or special groups” (83/100, very high); “Write and distribute financial or environmental impact reports” (81/100, 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 “Chief Executives” stay human?: About 28% 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: “Preside over, or serve on, boards of directors, management committees, or other governing boards” (5/100, minimal); “Represent organizations or promote their objectives at official functions, or delegate representatives to do so” (9/100, minimal); “Conduct or direct investigations or hearings to resolve complaints or violations of laws, or testify at such hearings” (11/100, 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 “Chief Executives” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 43% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 28% 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 Chief Executives 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 49 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.
4 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)
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.