I am becoming increasingly concerned with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’s classification of Administrative Professionals.
For those of you that aren’t familiar, The Bureau of Labor Statistics, commonly referred to as the BLS, is a U.S. government agency tasked with collecting, analyzing, and disseminating essential labor market data. Among its many responsibilities, the BLS classifies and categorizes various job roles to provide an overview of the labor market’s composition and trends. This data is seen as invaluable for policymakers, job seekers, employers, and researchers alike. The accurate categorization of job roles is of paramount importance. It shapes our understanding of the job market, influences policies, and guides career decisions.
And yet the BLS’s classification of administrative professionals is, at best, outdated and inaccurate.
My primary concern is the failure to reflect the diversification of skills within the administrative profession. The traditional role has evolved significantly over the last 12 years. Today, responsibilities include things like project management, data analysis, and research. However, the BLS’s classification seems to be stuck in a bygone era, focusing primarily on clerical and secretarial duties.
Today’s Administrative Professionals are expected to have a wide range of skills, including proficiency in software applications, data management, and interpersonal communication. Yet, the BLS’s classification does not in any way capture the full spectrum of skills that they possess.
And the way administrative professionals are classified by the BLS has broader implications. It affects how these professionals are viewed by employers and the opportunities available to them. These outdated classifications limit the career progression of many administrative professionals, as employers may not fully appreciate the depth and breadth of their skills and contributions. Additionally, public policies and workforce development initiatives may be misaligned with the actual needs of this dynamic profession.
Even worse, the traditional secretarial role is disappearing as the task based work is increasingly automated. This is why the profession has reinvented itself in recent years as a more strategic role, that offers increased value and more responsibility. By getting the classification wrong, it puts the whole profession and the support they offer our leaders in jeopardy.
It’s time to revisit and revise the way administrative professionals are categorized by the BLS. A more accurate and up-to-date classification would not only benefit those in the profession but also enhance our understanding of their potential utilization within the evolving world of work.
It is crucial that our labor market data accurately reflects reality and an update is long overdue.
