So you want to improve work relationships?... How to improve the relationship between departments

Playing Well With Others

How to improve the relationship between the marketing and R&D departments—and increase the chance of coming up with successful new products

• smaller
• Larger

By PHILIP KOTLER, ROBERT C. WOLCOTT And SUJ CHANDRASEKHAR

Why can’t marketing and research and development play nice?
Both functions are essential to developing successful new products. But the two departments don’t get along nearly as well as senior management thinks.

The Journal Report

See the complete Business Insight report.

How big is the gap? Huge. According to a survey we conducted, some 69% of senior managers described relations between marketing and R&D as collegial, but only 34% of mid-level managers saw the relationship that way.
When we asked staff in each department what they thought about the staff in the other, the comments were even more revealing. R&D employees complained that marketers give them poor data, that the marketing department is too insistent about certain product features or benefits, and that marketers are mainly useful in developing launch plans rather than in actually coming up with new products.
Marketing, meanwhile, had its own beefs: R&D doesn’t include marketers early enough in the product-development process; R&D doesn’t understand marketing, or what it brings to the process; R&D takes the credit when a product succeeds, and blames marketing if a product doesn’t sell.
Such complaints are hallmarks of a dysfunctional product-development process. Both marketing and R&D have indispensable roles to play, but neither can reach its full potential without the other. Companies where such divides exist are more likely to miss out on the kinds of breakthrough products and market-research discoveries that can drive growth and profits for years.
In what follows, we share our strategies for getting both sides to engage more productively from the earliest stages of a product’s development.

Enlarge Image

Close

Ross MacDonald

1. Make sure everybody recognizes the value that each department brings to the process—and how one side complements the other.

While R&D tends to focus on technical issues and hard data, marketing zeroes in on what customers want and how much they will pay. In essence, R&D staff should be masters of the art of the possible, while marketers should master the art of the valuable, or knowing what people want and will pay for.
Marketers are seldom equipped to solve technical problems. Similarly, R&D often can’t see the difference between what a product can do and what its potential customers actually want it to do. Even in cases where developers engage directly with customers, the ability to ask the right questions and generate reliable, robust market insights is a complex skill honed over years.
One can discover many things that are technically possible, yet may have little or no value. On the other hand, a company may identify a valuable customer need but lack the technical know-how to satisfy it.
The point is not that R&D can’t learn to think a bit like marketers. They should be encouraged to do so. But don’t expect either side to perform the other’s tasks exceptionally well.
To boost mutual awareness, a number of companies we interviewed require their R&D professionals to articulate and, if possible, quantify the value of their work in terms of what it means to the customer. This often brings R&D and marketers together early in a project. Some companies also encourage or even require marketers to be technically proficient enough to be partners with R&D.

Culture Clash

• The Situation: Different priorities and ways of thinking often create gaps in understanding between marketing and research-anddevelopment staff.
• The Problem: Such gaps often mean that one side dominates the development of new products, giving short shrift to the other. When marketing dominates, R&D can be under too much pressure to hit on breakthrough ideas. When R&D dominates, new products can lack marketable strengths.
• The Solution: Companies should help both sides learn to appreciate each other’s strengths, and encourage them to work closely together at the earliest stages of product development.

2. If one department or the other is dominating a company’s process for developing new products, bring the two more into balance.

It’s surprising how often one side is in the driver’s seat. At technology-based companies, R&D tends to hold the upper hand. At consumer-goods makers, it’s marketing. Each situation has its disadvantages.
When marketing has too much control, it stifles the creativity of engineers, who often feel they don’t have the time or backing to think of things beyond what the marketers want. At one consumer-goods company, both marketing and R&D professionals agreed that because of an incessant drive to follow predetermined launch dates—dates that were typically dictated by marketing—product advances were only incremental. R&D had to forgo technical opportunities because it was so often under deadline pressure.
Conversely, where R&D is king, marketing often is called in only at the end of the product-development process, when it’s time to develop a launch plan. At one company we’re familiar with, a company planned a major product launch after nine of its competitors were already selling a very similar product. The company conceded that its product had no advantage over the others. This company clearly should have gotten marketing involved in the development process much earlier.

Getting different departments within one company to work well together is essential in a competitive market. Rob Wolcott from the Kellogg School of Management explains how a company can foster intra-department decision-making.

One of the best ways to bring marketing and R&D more into balance is to create cross-functional teams to discover unmet needs of current or potential customers. A collaborative approach helps both sides experience each other’s contributions, and ensures both are at the table from the beginning.

3. Have the two sides speak a common language.

This is crucial for the departments to work together. They need to be able to communicate with each other, especially when it comes to understanding how a potential product relates to a customer need.
At a major oil company where the marketing staff was often put off by highly technical reports from R&D, senior management began requiring R&D to base its reports for marketing and sales on how the proposed new technologies would specifically help customers. A cover sheet for all technical briefings was created that required the speaker to describe all of the critical points in layman’s terms. A lot of researchers at the company said they found this challenging at first, but over time it improved their ability to collaborate with colleagues in other functions, not just marketing. The approach helped others across the company better understand the company’s underlying technologies.

4. Get out of your silos—up to a point.

The natural inclination for either department may be to stay inside one’s silo. But that is counterproductive. For instance, when R&D teams are excited about new technological opportunities, they should reach out to other business units and let them know what they’re working on. They should be advocates for the direction they think a product or technology should take.

For Further Reading

See these related articles from MIT Sloan Management Review

• Memo to Marketing
  Peter Lorange (Winter 2005)
  Marketing research must become a model for innovation rather than support the mere incremental administration of brands.
  http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/46205
• Managing Technology as a Business Strategy
  Tamara J. Erickson, John F. Magee, Philip A. Roussel and Kamal N. Saad (Spring 1990)
  By managing technology effectively, executives can ensure that their company’s R&D program focuses on developing technologies that support its product and marketing strategy.
  http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/3138
• Hurdle the Cross-Functional Barriers to Strategic Change
  Michael D. Hutt, Beth A. Walker and Gary L. Frankwick (Spring 1995)
  The authors track a strategic decision in a Fortune 500 corporation, identify political obstacles that overshadowed the process, and highlight turning points in the strategy’s direction.
  http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/3632
• A Plan to Invent the Marketing­ We Need Today
  Yoram (Jerry) Wind (Summer 2008)
  The discipline of marketing hasn’t kept up with the rapid changes facing 21st-century businesses. Here are seven strategies that can make marketing both relevant and rigorous in today’s world.
  http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/49411
• What People Want (and How to Predict It)
  Thomas H. Davenport and Jeanne G. Harris (Winter 2009)
  Companies now have unprecedented access to data and sophisticated technology that can inform decisions as never before. How successful are they at helping forecast what customers want to watch, listen to and buy?
  http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/50207

However, they shouldn’t become solely focused on fulfilling the wishes of the different business units, which are generally focused on what they can sell today and in the relatively near future. Because of the focus on quarterly results, it is difficult for most business units to devote substantial resources to opportunities that might not blossom for three or more years. The challenge thus is building a portfolio that supports the incremental needs of current businesses, as well as long-term growth opportunities.

5. Focus on the consumer.

When both sides are encouraged to think in terms of what customers want, it helps clarify thinking about product designs and how resources should be allocated. When engagement and thinking in terms of customer needs become routine, everyone has a common vision for what is being developed and why.
Focusing on the customer sounds obvious, but doing it well is a challenge. Simply listening to customers is not enough. The ability to ask questions, observe and engage with customers to generate reliable, robust marketing insights is a trained skill learned through experience.
Still, direct interaction with current and potential customers is important for marketing folks and R&D alike.
So, let engineers spend time in the field with the customers. If the company sells gasoline, let them work at a filling station. There are likely to be ways of applying technologies or products to problems that only occur to people steeped in the technical capabilities of your company.
To develop its Classmate PC, a low-cost laptop for schoolchildren in developing countries, Intel Corp., of Santa Clara, Calif., has sent engineers and other staff to schools in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. Classroom observations have helped shape design features: The laptops are sturdy, with nonslip surfaces, and allow students to write on an electronic tablet. Studying and being responsive to local cultures and support systems for the schools also helps the company market the product.
Deeper involvement with customers can help marketing in many areas. At Baxter International Inc. Inc., the Deerfield, Ill., medical-supply company, marketing staff performed an in-depth study of kidney-dialysis care in the field, with patients, doctors, nurses and technicians, examining all aspects of the process. Over the course of the study, marketers identified some 30 possible new product and service opportunities. In collaboration with R&D, some of those ideas have been brought to market already. Other ideas generated by the project are still in development, including pilot projects in various markets around the world.
When marketing and R&D together are truly focused on understanding and acting on customer needs, it makes both of their jobs easier and their results more productive.
A few years ago, General Electric Co. of Fairfield, Conn., started a line of kitchen appliances called the Café Series, for people who love to cook and entertain. Marketing helped develop the concept of kitchen as café; industrial designers and other technical staff gave the appliances—refrigerators, stoves, dishwashers and ovens—a look and features that incorporated the café concept. Both R&D and marketing spent time with consumers cooking in their kitchens and taking notes.
Companies most capable of bringing R&D and marketing together around what really matters to customers will build a powerful competitive weapon. It’s not easy. But if it were, there’d be no money in it.

Source: Wall Street Journal Online.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204830304574133242651502088.html

So you want to keep on studying...? Online Courses Look for a Business Model

Free Classes, Open to the Masses, Seek to Generate Revenue From Content Licensing, Exams or Job-Referral Services

• smaller
• Larger

By MELISSA KORN And JENNIFER LEVITZ

Professor Jeremy Adelman has taught a world-history class at Princeton University for several years, but as he led about 60 students through 700 years of history on the ivy-covered campus this past fall, one thing was different: Another 89,000 students tuned into his lectures free of charge via Coursera, an online platform.
Those kinds of numbers, and their potential for remaking higher education, have generated plenty of excitement about massive open online courses—dubbed MOOCs. They've also lured venture investors and universities, who have put millions of dollars into companies like Udacity, Coursera and edX, which partner with schools or instructors to offer these courses.

Enlarge Image

Close

Annie Tritt for The Wall Street Journal

Udacity employees work on programing the site at the company's Palo Alto, Calif., office last April.

Related

• Educators Debate Academic Merits

The most popular of these classes enroll hundreds of thousands of students globally, and while they're taught by star instructors from top universities, they generally don't carry credit that can be applied to a college degree.
While backers say the short, digestible lessons are nothing short of revolutionary, MOOC providers are still figuring out how to keep basic course access free while generating revenue.
Sebastian Thrun, a Stanford University professor and co-founder of Udacity, which launched in 2012 with a $21.5 million bankroll from such prominent backers as Andreessen Horowitz, says his fledgling industry is in "a state of experimentation."

Some of the Partner Schools

Coursera: Princeton University, Duke University, Stanford University, University of Pennsylvania, Emory University, Mount Sinai School of Medicine
edX: Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Texas system, University of California, Berkeley, Georgetown University

Udacity and others are trying out different business models, such as matching students with employers, licensing content to schools and charging for proctored exams, yet it's unclear what might stick—or, more importantly, can actually earn money.
"Nobody has any idea how it's going to work," says Dave Cormier, manager of Web communications and innovation at the University of Prince Edward Island, who was involved in earlier iterations of MOOCs a few years ago and has been credited with coining the term in 2008. "People have ideas of how to monetize it, but simply don't have any evidence."
Coursera, another firm with Stanford founders and $22 million in funding from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and others, recently began notifying students that they can opt in to a job-placement service, where recruiters can access details of their class performance. But the company matched only a handful of students in its months-long pilot and is still determining the fee structure.
While he declines to provide dollar figures, co-founder Andrew Ng acknowledges "it's still a business model that we're fleshing out."
MOOCs are "an innovation looking for a business model," says Kevin Kinser, an associate professor of higher education policy at the State University of New York at Albany. Online courses may be valuable supplements to regular classes, but Mr. Kinser, whose research focuses on nontraditional higher education models, says it's hard to see how they can be more than altruistic endeavors.
Venture investors seem undaunted. New Enterprise Associates Inc. put $8 million into Coursera just weeks after NEA general partner Scott Sandell learned that the company's founders were still debating whether to proceed as a nonprofit or for-profit venture.
"The business model was fairly unclear, but there were some plausible ideas about how Coursera could turn into a sizable company," Mr. Sandell says.
About 350 companies have signed up to access Udacity's job portal in recent months, though it has placed just about 20 students so far. Recruiters pay for successful matches, and Mr. Thrun says Udacity charges "significantly" less than Silicon Valley headhunters, whose cut he says can be two to three months of a candidate's starting salary.
Udacity earns additional money from courses created by talent-hungry technology companies including Google Inc. and Autodesk Inc. Mr. Thrun says that with money from job referrals and sponsored classes, "we will be able to survive quite well," though the company, like other course providers, declines to provide financial projections.
EdX, a nonprofit founded with $30 million each from Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is also letting companies use its platform to offer their own training courses.
With thousands of students in any one class, the varied quality of student work is a barrier to widespread acceptance of MOOCs. But proctored exams, which could help ensure academic rigor, may also offer a revenue opportunity.
Udacity and edX have both joined with Pearson PLC's Pearson VUE to offer fee-based proctored exams at the company's 450 test centers world-wide. Udacity charges $89, while edX's president, Anant Agarwal, expects his to be under $100 when the first exam is announced soon. Coursera is considering similar plans.
With completion rates for most MOOCs usually falling below 10%, the earning potential is limited. If 10,000 people take a course, and 1,000 finish, early trials suggest just a fraction of those students are likely to pay for verified exams. At $89 a head, a successful course might net just a few thousand dollars in proctor fees.
Content licensing is showing some promise, with schools signing on to use MOOCs for large survey courses, which they'll complement with in-person discussion groups and supplemental assignments. Antioch University, which enrolls about 5,000 students over five U.S. campuses, announced in October that it would allow students to take some Coursera classes for credit.
Neither side disclosed the terms of the deal, though Mr. Ng says Coursera received a "modest" fee and is in similar talks with other schools.
Several school administrators admit they're teaming up with course providers mainly because they fear missing out on something big. So far none of the elite schools that provide content for companies like Coursera and edX offer credit for those classes, though attitudes may be shifting.
The American Council on Education, an influential association of university presidents, is considering for-credit status for some Coursera courses. And some schools are designing their own for-credit offerings, creating potential competition for Coursera and its peers. In November 10 colleges, including Duke University, joined forces with another company to launch a series of credit-bearing courses for students at those schools.
Venture funders are optimistic the math will work out eventually. Andreessen Horowitz partner Peter Levine, a Udacity board member, acknowledges that revenue plans are hazy right now, but says he expects "some real direction" on business plans within the year.
At least some providers of MOOCs may decide that nonprofit status is the way to go, taking cues from Carnegie Mellon University's decade-old Open Learning Initiative, which has nearly 45,000 students enrolled across its free and fee-based classes. While it relies mainly on grant funding and offers classes free to independent learners, it has begun charging $15 to $25 per student for the academic versions of some courses—used at schools such as University of California, Berkeley—to ensure the initiative could sustain itself.
Candace Thille, the project's director, says the new course providers have a lot to learn, especially because they'll have to answer to investors. "You can't just cross your fingers and hope money flows in at some point."

More on MOOCs

Company	Number of unique users*	Number of course enrollments	Number of courses offered	Course completion rate	Sample courses
Coursera	2.09 million	7 million	210	9%**	Think Again: How to Reason and Argue; Introduction to Finance
edX	525,000+***	462,000+	21	4.6%**	Circuits and Electronics; Foundations of Computer Graphics
Udacity	460,000	975,000	19	5%-14%	HTML5 Game Development; Artificial Intelligence for Robotics
Udemy	500,000	800,000	6,000	18%	An Entrepreneur's Checklist; Advanced Excel Training

*Numbers as of Dec. 18 for Coursera, edX and Udemy. Numbers as of Dec. 19 for Udacity.
**At Coursera, 30% of students who attempt the first assignment ultimately complete the course. EdX figure is based on spring 2012 Circuits course only. Twenty-four percent of students who completed the first problem set actually passed that edX course.
***Not all edX users who have created usernames have registered for a course.
Source: the companies

Coursera's Popular Courses

Course Title	Number of Students Enrolled	Instructor Affiliation	Course Description
Think Again: How to Reason and Argue	150,158	Duke University and University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill	Learn how to identify, analyze and evaluate arguments by other people, including politicians and salespeople, and how to construct good arguments of your own.
Introduction to Finance	126,523	University of Michigan	Learn and apply the concepts of time value of money and risk, using both theory and real-world examples, to understand the major determinants of value creation.
Model Thinking	100,824	University of Michigan	Learn how to think with models, such as tipping points and the wisdom of crowds, and use them to make sense of the complex world around us. Algebra is required. Course includes lectures, quizzes and a final exam.

Udacity's Popular Courses

Course Title	Number of Students Enrolled	Instructor Affiliation	Course Description
Introduction to Computer Science	230,000+	University of Virginia	Learn key concepts in computer science and learn how to write computer programs in the context of building a web crawler.
Introduction to Statistics	~70,000	Stanford University	The course covers visualization, probability, regression and other topics.
How to Build a Startup	~70,000	Steve Blank, entrepreneur	Learn the key tools to build a successful startup, or at least reduce the risk of failure. Learn the steps of Blank's "Customer Development" process.
Web Development	~70,000	Steve Huffman, cofounder of reddit.com	The class teaches how to build your own blog application and scale it to support large numbers of users.

Udemy's Popular Courses

Course Title	Number of Students Enrolled	Instructor Affiliation	Course Description
Excel Training for Beginners*	19,800	InfiniteSkills.com, a Canadian e-Learning company	An introduction to Microsoft Excel 2010, with topics including data entry, formatting and running calculations.
Build. Measure. Learn. Lean Startup SXSW 2012	17,700	Eric Ries, author and creator of Lean Startup methodology	Recorded at SXSW Interactive 2012, the course covers agile development, business case studies customer development best practices.
Karl Taylor's Free Photography Course	17,600	Karl Taylor, professional photographer	Learn SLR photography, including lighting, portraiture and shutter speed settings.

*Excel course costs $99.

edX's Popular Courses

Course Title	Number of Students Enrolled	Instructor Affiliation	Course Description
Circuits and Electronics	155,000	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Introduction to engineering in the context of the lumped circuits abstraction.
Introduction to Computer Science	135,000	Harvard University	Based on Harvard's introductory computer science course, it teaches the art of programming for majors and non-majors alike.
Introduction to Computer Science and Programming	100,000	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	An introduction to using computation to solve real problems, aimed at students with little or no prior programming experience.

Write to Melissa Korn at melissa.korn@wsj.com and Jennifer Levitz at jennifer.levitz@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared January 2, 2013, on page B8 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Online Courses Look for a Business Model.

Source: WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324339204578173421673664106.html 

So...you want to work in marketing? It's a good idea to learn about the Best/Worst jobs

Jobs Rated 2012: Ranking 200 Jobs From Best to Worst

By Victoria Brienza

Finding your dream job requires more than just hoping the stars will align in your favor. You probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than having the job fairy deliver you the perfect job just when you need one. In fact, you likely ended up in your current career because you followed in your parent’s footsteps (or heeded their advice), or you took a job because it was something you thought might be “cool” to do. Perhaps a teacher suggested your current career path, or maybe a job simply “opened up” just when you needed one.

Landing the job that’s right for you – that’s a good match for your skills and interests - requires soul-searching, some trial and error and lots of research. And we’re here to help! Our 2012 Jobs Rated report helps job seekers sort through the clutter with a comprehensive analysis of 200 different jobs – from Accountant to Zoologist – ranking each profession based on factual analysis and hard data instead of guesswork.

2012 Jobs Rated Report

The 10 Best Jobs of 2012  //  2012 Jobs Rated Methodology // The 10 Worst Jobs of 2012 // Frequently Asked Questions

How do our Jobs Rated researchers determine which professions rank better than others?

Our team gathers mounds of data and sorts through all of the factors to break each element into five key categories: Physical Demands, Work Environment, Income, Stress and Hiring Outlook. Jobs receive a score in each individual category, and when these are added together, the career with the best overall score is ranked 1st, while the one with the worst overall score is ranked 200th. By sorting the data of the 200 jobs into one central list, our Jobs Rated report serves as a valuable resource for anyone trying to research their career options, get an understanding of what a job entails and see a clearer picture of the job market potential. (For complete details on how we score, visit the JobsRated.com Methodology Page)

Although each individual’s experience with a position can vary greatly, our Jobs Rated report is here to help you make a more qualified career decision based on data rather than subjective surveys. Take a look and a first step towards a possible new career.

1. Software Engineer

Researches, designs, develops and maintains software systems along with hardware development for medical, scientific, and industrial purposes.

• Overall Score: 176.00
• Income: $88,142.00

---

• Work Environment:41.000
• Stress:10.420
• Physical Demands:40.00
• Hiring Outlook:25.02

2. Actuary

Interprets statistics to determine probabilities of accidents, sickness, and death, and loss of property from theft and natural disasters.

• Overall Score: 226.00
• Income: $88,202.00

---

• Work Environment:44.860
• Stress:16.020
• Physical Demands:45.86
• Hiring Outlook:27.72

3. Human Resources Manager

Plans, directs, and/or coordinates all human resource activities and staff of an organization.

• Overall Score: 281.00
• Income: $99,102.00

---

• Work Environment:44.000
• Stress:14.020
• Physical Demands:41.00
• Hiring Outlook:19.52

4. Dental Hygienist

Assists dentists in diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of a group or private dental practice.

• Overall Score: 289.00
• Income: $68,109.00

---

• Work Environment:54.550
• Stress:12.090
• Physical Demands:42.55
• Hiring Outlook:35.79

5. Financial Planner

Related to careers in portfolio management, the financial planner offers a broad range of services aimed at assisting individuals in managing and planning their financial future.

• Overall Score: 300.00
• Income: $104,161.00

---

• Work Environment:50.000
• Stress:18.610
• Physical Demands:46.00
• Hiring Outlook:22.81

6. Audiologist

Diagnoses and treats hearing problems by attempting to discover the range, nature, and degree of hearing function.

• Overall Score: 311.00
• Income: $67,137.00

---

• Work Environment:53.130
• Stress:9.370
• Physical Demands:47.13
• Hiring Outlook:37.17

7. Occupational Therapist

Develops individualized programs of activity for mentally, physically, developmentally and emotionally impaired persons, to aid them in achieving self-reliance.

• Overall Score: 318.00
• Income: $72,110.00

---

• Work Environment:54.130
• Stress:13.100
• Physical Demands:46.13
• Hiring Outlook:33.60

8. Online Advertising Manager

Plans, directs, or coordinates advertising policies, campaigns and programs online.

• Overall Score: 343.00
• Income: $87,255.00

---

• Work Environment:54.000
• Stress:21.550
• Physical Demands:42.00
• Hiring Outlook:25.55

9. Computer Systems Analyst

Plans and develops computer systems for businesses and scientific institutions.

• Overall Score: 370.00
• Income: $78,148.00

---

• Work Environment:47.390
• Stress:16.480
• Physical Demands:47.39
• Hiring Outlook:22.58

10. Mathematician

Applies mathematical theories and formulas to teach or solve problems in a business, educational, or industrial climate.

• Overall Score: 392.00
• Income: $99,191.00

---

• Work Environment:46.860
• Stress:12.910
• Physical Demands:45.86
• Hiring Outlook:16.61

11. Speech Pathologist

Assesses hearing, speech, and language disabilities and provides treatment. Assists individuals with communication disorders through diagnostic techniques.

• Overall Score: 397.00
• Income: $67,142.00

---

• Work Environment:53.130
• Stress:12.420
• Physical Demands:47.13
• Hiring Outlook:23.82

12. Optometrist

Diagnoses visual disorders and prescribes and administers corrective and rehabilitative treatments.

• Overall Score: 421.00
• Income: $95,152.00

---

• Work Environment:59.940
• Stress:16.520
• Physical Demands:52.94
• Hiring Outlook:33.62

13. Physical Therapist

Plans and directs treatment to improve mobility and alleviate pain in persons disabled by injury or disease.

• Overall Score: 438.00
• Income: $76,100.00

---

• Work Environment:59.130
• Stress:14.000
• Physical Demands:53.13
• Hiring Outlook:39.00

14. Pharmacist

Advises physicians and patients on the affects of drugs and medications; prepares and dispenses prescriptions.

• Overall Score: 476.00
• Income: $112,070.00

---

• Work Environment:65.290
• Stress:15.700
• Physical Demands:52.29
• Hiring Outlook:24.10

15. Web Developer

Creating and maintaining layout, navigation, and interactivity of intranet and internet websites.

• Overall Score: 484.00
• Income: $76,179.00

---

• Work Environment:51.000
• Stress:22.790
• Physical Demands:48.00
• Hiring Outlook:21.49

16. Petroleum Engineer

Plans drilling locations and effective production methods for optimal access to oil and natural gas.

• Overall Score: 506.00
• Income: $114,148.00

---

• Work Environment:52.060
• Stress:19.480
• Physical Demands:49.06
• Hiring Outlook:17.48

17. Dietitian

Assesses patients' dietary needs, plans menus, and instructs patients and their families about proper nutritional care.

• Overall Score: 510.00
• Income: $53,127.00

---

• Work Environment:49.800
• Stress:10.270
• Physical Demands:43.80
• Hiring Outlook:18.97

18. Statistician

Tabulates, analyzes, and interprets the numeric results of experiments and surveys.

• Overall Score: 517.00
• Income: $73,205.00

---

• Work Environment:44.760
• Stress:14.050
• Physical Demands:44.76
• Hiring Outlook:15.15

19. Chiropractor

Treats physical problems by manipulating various parts of the body, especially the spinal column.

• Overall Score: 518.00
• Income: $67,350.00

---

• Work Environment:60.940
• Stress:13.500
• Physical Demands:53.94
• Hiring Outlook:30.80

20. Sociologist

Studies human behavior by examining the interaction of social groups and institutions.

• Overall Score: 532.00
• Income: $72,195.00

---

• Work Environment:
  52.470
• Stress:
  18.950
• Physical Demands:
  47.47
• Hiring Outlook:
  19.05
  

The Top 200 Jobs of 2012: 21 - 40

Most professions that rank 21 – 40 fall into one of three categories: science-related, historical or technical. A majority of these professions require advanced degrees and are well paid for their services. All experience mid- to low stress levels and aren’t very physically demanding.


The Top 200 Jobs of 2012: 41 - 60

Professions that require math, science or legal knowledge dominate Jobs 41-60. Most of the professions offer mid- to high-level salaries and all share a positive hiring outlook. Lower stress, good work environments, low physical demands: where else would a Loan Officer and a Aerospace Engineer have a common job setting?


The Top 200 Jobs of 2012: 61 - 80

Jobs 61-80 are a good mixture of blue- and white-collar jobs. Most of the jobs offer median-level incomes and decent work environments. Two very different careers, such as a Judge and Heating/Refrigeration Mechanic, rank next to each other. Both jobs have lower stress levels, but a Judge has a better work environment while a Heating/Refrigeration Mechanic has a better job outlook.


The Top 200 Jobs of 2012: 81 - 100

From Electrician to Cosmetologist, the jobs listed from 81-100 run the gamut of professions. The closest grouping are those careers that require a lot of caring and compassion (for example: Funeral Director, Elementary School Teacher, Clergy, Nurse), which all ranked closely together. While the Event Coordinator has the highest job outlook, stress and a challenging work environment keep them lower on the list.


The Top 200 Jobs of 2012: 101 - 120

Higher-stress jobs and poorer job prospects are starting to become more prevalent with Jobs 101-120. At the rank of 109, the Electrical Technician posts the first instance of a negative job outlook. Two of the most stressful jobs rank in this grouping: Airline Pilot appears at 104 while Corporate Executive ranks in at 116.


The Top 200 Jobs of 2012: 121 - 140

With Jobs 121-140, professions with lower stress and higher pay are beginning to fade. With the exception of Air Traffic Controller at $108,207, most of the jobs here are in the $30k to $65k-a-year range with average to high stress levels.


The Top 200 Jobs of 2012: 141 - 160

Jobs that are hands-on rule 141-160. Most of these professions are out in the field (or shop) and not in a cubicle farm. While a few of them may require an advanced degree, such as Military General, for the most part the majority of these jobs require a high school education and some education from a trade school.

The Top 200 Jobs of 2012: 161 - 180

As we sink lower into the ratings of Jobs 161-180, the salaries of these professions drop as well. Farmer, listed at 179, has the highest income of this group with $61,269. Most of the professions in this list earn about $30k to $40k a year. The hiring outlook is also bleaker, with Construction Worker and Ironworker leading the pack at 18.38 and 18.12 respectively.


The Top 200 Jobs of 2012: 181 - 200

As we get to the bottom of our rankings, these professions all have a varied mixture of physical labor, declining job opportunities, lower incomes, poor working conditions and high stress. While not all of them have the physical demands of a firefighter, cushy would not be a word to describe any of these positions. For most of the jobs in this group, the salaries are very low with an even worse hiring outlook. Opportunity to grow in these job is minimal.

The 2012 Jobs Rated rankings serve as a guide for anyone trying to get a clearer picture of employment in an uncertain time. Whether you’re graduating from college, have recently found yourself downsized or just can’t stand the thought of going back to the grind for one more day, our rankings and individual category scores can help you take the guesswork out of your job search. And with facts on your side, you’ll be starting out already ahead of the game.

CareerCast. (2012)
Source URL: http://www.careercast.com/jobs-rated/2012-ranking-200-jobs-best-worst