Skip to content
man bot
Compare

Managers · code 1114

Senior officials of special-interest organizations

AI can write the campaign briefing. Winning the argument is still advocacy.

All nine tasks are mostly out of AI's reach: keeping an eye on the organisation, standing up for its members, and representing and negotiating on their behalf.

What they actually do (and what else they get called)

Senior officials of special-interest organizations determine, formulate and direct the implementation of policies of special-interest organizations, such as political-party organizations, trade unions, employers’ organizations, trade and industry associations, humanitarian or charity organizations, or sports associations, and represent their organizations and act on their behalf. Tasks include - (a) determining and formulating the policies, rules and regulations of the organization; (b) planning, directing and coordinating the general functioning of the organization; (c) reviewing the operations and results of the organization and reporting to boards of directors and governing bodies, the organization’s membership and funding agencies; (d) negotiating on behalf of the organization, its members and relevant special-interest groups; (e) promoting the interests of the organization, its members and relevant special-interest groups before the legislature, government or general public; (f) planning, organizing and directing sections charged with implementing the organization's policies, programmes, rules and regulations; (g) ensuring appropriate systems and procedures are developed and implemented to provide budgetary control; (h) monitoring and evaluating performance of the organization or enterprise against established objectives and policies; (i) representing the organization at official occasions and board meetings, in negotiations and at conventions, public hearings and forums. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Chairperson, trade union - Director-general, employers’ organization - Leader, political party - President, political party - Secretary-general, environment protection organization - Secretary-general, human rights organization

  • special-interest groups' official

Job titles from the EU's ESCO list. Search for any of them on the jobs page and you'll end up here.

63 / 100

Mostly holds up against AI

AI can take a few chores off your plate, but most of the day is still yours.

Not the odds you keep your job. It's how much of the everyday work still needs a person, out of 100.

← Robot's turf Human's turf →

The ILO's official verdict: Minimal Exposure

293 of 427 for holding up against AI

Why this score?

The ILO rated each of this job's 9 tasks for how much of it AI could do. They average 36.8 out of 100, so it holds up at 100 − 36.8 = 63.2.

That's the whole sum. No black box, no secret sauce: you can check it against the ILO's study. ILO group “Minimal Exposure”: A few tasks are affected, but the heart of the job isn't.

This job rates 24.1 out of 100 for how hands-on it is. The score above only looks at AI tools, not robots, but for work this far from the physical that matters less.

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use

Man v Bot · compare

Who holds up better?

Senior officials of special-interest organizations 63

v

Go on, try your partner's job. Or your sibling's. We won't tell.

Man v Bot

Where the bot helps, and where the human wins

Bot

What AI takes

The routine stuff. You may not miss it.

  • Research and briefings.
  • Reports to boards and members.
  • Campaign materials.

Man

What people still do better

Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.

  • Negotiating for members.
  • Building relationships with decision-makers.
  • Leading the organisation.

Both

What's arriving

New work that only exists because the AI does.

  • Campaigning on AI and work.
  • Data-driven member engagement.
  • Countering AI-generated misinformation.

Written by a human, from the ILO's task ratings below. Yes, we see the irony. Read it as one person's take.

Meet your two rivals

They're not the same machine. AI software can only reach the parts of a job done on a screen or in words. A chatbot can't climb a ladder. A robot might, one day, if it doesn't fall off.

The AI

Lives in a screen. Never had to fix a boiler.

Threat level: Low

29 could do without you

It could take over very little of the work on its own. It could help with 67 of 100.

The robot

The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.

How much it matters here: Lower

24 how hands-on

Not much of this job needs hands, so the robot can sit this one out.

So could a robot do the physical part?

Less than half of this job is hands-on. Robots still matter, but for a smaller part of the work, so we don't sort it any further.

Robots hate fiddly work in awkward spaces. On that measure, this job scores 9 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.

24 How
hands-on
9 How fiddly
and cramped

Kind of hands-on work Less than half hands-on

The small print

They aren't a robot score, and nothing on this page is. Nobody measures how far robots have got well enough to put a number on it. These are the closest thing we have: how hands-on the job is, and how much fiddly, cramped work it takes, which is what Frey and Osborne found hardest for machines.

From O*NET, averaged across 13 US jobs , so treat it as rough.

finger skill 10.4 · hand skill 8.5 · cramped spaces 7.7 · averaged · rule: hands-on under 50

estimated O*NET 31.0 BLS occupational crosswalk chain ISCO-08 to 2010 SOC (Aug 2012, rev. Jun 2015); 2010 to 2018 SOC (Nov 2017); O*NET-SOC 2019 taxonomy data 0.8-observed-use measures chosen by Frey & Osborne (2017) · the grouping is a sorting, not a measurement

The job, task by task

Every job is really a bundle of tasks. Here's this one unpacked, with how much of each AI could do, out of 100. The score is the average, and averages can hide a lot.

AI's favourite task here scores 46, against an average of 37. The bigger the gap, the more lopsided the job: some of it wide open to AI, some of it barely touched.

  1. 46

    Monitoring and evaluating performance of the organization or enterprise against established objectives and policies

    Low
  2. 42

    Promoting the interests of the organization, its members and relevant special-interest groups before the legislature, government or general public

    Low
  3. 40

    Reviewing the operations and results of the organization and reporting to boards of directors and governing bodies, the organization’s membership and funding agencies

    Low
  4. 38

    Ensuring appropriate systems and procedures are developed and implemented to provide budgetary control

    Low
  5. 37

    Planning, directing and coordinating the general functioning of the organization

    Low
  6. 37

    Determining and formulating the policies, rules and regulations of the organization

    Low
  7. 35

    Planning, organizing and directing sections charged with implementing the organization's policies, programmes, rules and regulations

    Low
  8. 29

    Representing the organization at official occasions and board meetings, in negotiations, at conventions, public hearings and forums.

    Low
  9. 28

    Negotiating on behalf of the organization, its members and relevant special-interest groups

    Low

9 tasks · the High to Very Low labels are the ILO's

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use

Sidekick or replacement?

A tool that makes you faster is a very different thing from one that does the task while you watch. Jobs and Skills Australia measured the two separately, which is handy.

AI helps you
67
AI does it for you
29

Sidekick wins, by 38 points.

How good a match is this?

2 Australian jobs match this one, and we've simply averaged them. Treat the numbers as a rough guide.

estimated Our Gen AI Transition (Gen AI Capacity Study) September 2025 detailed data release data 0.8-observed-use matched to Australian jobs 1111, 1112

Meanwhile, in real life…

Everything else here is about what AI could do. This is what people actually did. When they asked Claude for help with this kind of work, did they hand the whole task over, or roll their sleeves up and work through it together?

Out of every 100 conversations

55
45

worked through it together handed it over

The small print

Anthropic publishes this about its own product, and it doesn't feed into any score here. These are people who use Claude, not workers in general, so little use here doesn't mean AI can't reach the job. This job makes up 1.08% of the conversations.

The data is sorted by US job, and this one matches 11 of them. We've combined them, counting each by how often it comes up in the conversations, so the busiest one counts most.

These two add up to 100. The bars elsewhere on the page don't, because each is scored on its own, so we don't put them side by side.

observed use Anthropic Economic Index release 2026-06-26, period beginning 2026-05-01 data 0.8-observed-use 2026-05-01 · Anthropic, about its own product

So, should leaders of membership and advocacy groups be worried?

Short answer: not much. Some of the chores will change, and good riddance.

Parts of it are changing. Monitoring performance, promoting interests, reporting, budgets, running the organisation, policy, directing sections, representing and negotiating all rate Low. AI helps with research and communications; influence and trust stay human.

Worth remembering: we score tasks, not jobs. When AI takes on a task, the job usually reshuffles around it rather than vanishing.

Where this job could lead

None of the new jobs we've written up start from here yet. Could be you're the first. See the jobs AI is creating →

How are the neighbours doing?

There are 30 jobs in the “Managers” family, averaging 64. This one is below the family average.

Pit this against any other job →