Field entry, published 2026-11-03T00:00:00.000Z, updated 2026-11-03T00:00:00.000Z. Group: Skill level and skill specialisation

Why are managers and armed forces exceptions to skill level?

Managers and armed forces occupations are exceptions because a single skill level cannot honestly describe either major group. Managers span levels 3 and 4, and armed forces occupations span levels 1, 2 and 4, so ISCO-08 applies skill level primarily at the second hierarchical level, the sub-major group, for these two groups instead of at major group level. The exception is a matter of accuracy: where the general rule would mislead, the classification moves the decision down one level.

To see why, consider what each group contains. Major Group 1 gathers people who plan, direct, coordinate and evaluate the activities of enterprises, organisations, departments and services, together with managers of smaller units such as shops, restaurants and hotels. That is a very wide brief. At the top end, chief executives and senior officials make strategic decisions that require extended theoretical and analytical work, which is level 4 work. At the other end, managers of small hospitality, retail or service units carry out complex practical and organisational work that is closer to level 3, even though they hold real managerial responsibility. One number could not cover both ends without hiding the difference.

Why does management work span two levels?

Management is defined in ISCO-08 more by function than by seniority alone. The function is to direct and coordinate, but the complexity of that function depends on the scale and nature of what is being directed. Running a large organisation involves setting strategy, interpreting markets and regulations, allocating major resources, and being accountable for outcomes that are uncertain and interdependent. That is the kind of task complexity that sits at level 4.

Running a small unit, by contrast, involves direct supervision, rostering, stock control, customer handling and day to day problem solving within a framework set by others. Those tasks are demanding and require judgement, but they draw more on practical and organisational knowledge than on extended theoretical analysis. Placing such roles at level 3 recognises their complexity without pretending that they involve the same kind of work as senior strategic management. Applying skill level at sub-major group level lets the classification draw that line in the right place, group by group, rather than forcing all managers into one box.

Why is the armed forces case different again?

Armed forces occupations span an even wider range, from level 1 to level 4, with level 3 notably absent from the ILO summary table for Major Group 0. The group includes commissioned officers whose work involves strategy, planning and command at a level of complexity that sits at level 4, non-commissioned officers whose work sits at level 2, and other ranks whose characteristic tasks sit at level 1 or level 2 depending on the sub-major group. Military organisation is hierarchical by design, and its ranks correspond only loosely to civilian ideas of skill, which is one reason the ILO treats the group separately.

Another reason is comparability. Armed forces structures differ sharply between countries, in size, in the balance between officers and other ranks, and in which tasks are carried out by military personnel rather than civilians. A single level for the whole group would therefore conceal more than it revealed, and would make cross country comparisons unreliable. By applying skill level at sub-major group level, ISCO-08 can distinguish commissioned officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks in a way that survives those national differences, at least at the broad level the classification aims for.

What do the exceptions teach about the classification?

The exceptions teach that ISCO-08 prefers a truthful lower level decision to a tidy upper level one. The general rule, skill level at major group level, works for eight of the ten major groups because their families of work are coherent in complexity. For the two groups where that coherence breaks down, the classification does not pretend otherwise. It shifts the decision down one step and says so openly, in the same ILO material that states the general rule.

That openness is useful for readers. When a source claims a single skill level for managers or for armed forces occupations, that claim should be treated as a simplification at best, and checked against the sub-major groups before it is repeated. A careful citation will name the sub-major group and its level, or will state the range for the major group as a whole. Either approach respects the exception, while a single level quoted for the whole group does not, however confidently it is stated.

Sources checked

1. ILO ISCO-08

Back to the Skill level and skill specialisation group or browse all occupations.