← All programs

Sales

Not included unless you switch them on: 328,800 postings from Fortune 500 career sites and 68,167 postings from small-employer job boards and 14,055 postings from US federal jobs, collected since 27 September 2026. The published figures stay on the panel they have always used.

How Sales relates to the other programs

15,655 of the 147,150 postings in the United States in the last 90 days count toward Sales (10.6%), the 3rd largest of the 11 programs. 4,702 count toward it alone; 10,953 also count toward another program. 42.2% are AI-related, against 34.8% across all postings: the 5th highest of the 10 programs with enough postings to say.

Finance: 52% in commonHuman Resource Management: 35% in commonGlobal Supply Chain Management: 47% in commonBusiness Management: 34% in commonInformation Systems: 37% in commonStrategic Management: 29% in commonMarketing: 33% in commonExperience Design and Management: 34% in commonEntrepreneurial Management: 26% in commonAccounting: 34% in commonSALES in the middle; the other programs overlap it in proportion to what they share.

Sales is the large circle. Each small circle overlaps it in proportion to how much of its methods and practices it shares with Sales: the most alike program has 80% of its area inside, a program with half that similarity half as much, and one that shares nothing just touches. Around the ring, programs sit next to the ones they share most with. The number in each circle is the exact figure; every circle opens that program.

Most alike on methods and practices

  1. Finance52% in common

    Forecasting · Negotiation · Optimization · Roadmap · Account management

  2. Global Supply Chain Management47% in common

    Negotiation · Roadmap · Forecasting · Optimization · Project management

  3. Information Systems37% in common

    Roadmap · Optimization · Use cases · Project management · Account management

  4. Human Resource Management35% in common

    Negotiation · Optimization · Project management · Roadmap · Process improvement

  5. Experience Design and Management34% in common

    Roadmap · Optimization · Project management · Product management · Agile

  6. Business Management34% in common

    Roadmap · Optimization · Forecasting · Project management · Use cases

  7. Accounting34% in common

    Forecasting · Optimization · Project management · Process improvement · Stakeholder management

  8. Marketing33% in common

    Roadmap · Optimization · Use cases · Project management · Product management

  9. Strategic Management29% in common

    Roadmap · Optimization · Use cases · Project management · Negotiation

  10. Entrepreneurial Management26% in common

    Roadmap · Project management · Stakeholder management

“In common” is the share of the two programs’ methods and practices mixes that they hold together: for each item, the smaller of its two shares, summed, over the larger, summed. Items shown are the ones both programs ask for most, each held by at least 20 postings in both. Last 90 days, every geography. A posting counts toward a program when the discipline classifier assigns it there (how postings are classified).

Where Sales postings fall across the four quadrants

Each bar counts Sales postings in one quadrant, not the whole quadrant. The filled part is how many of those are AI-related. The last figure on each row turns it round: how much of that whole quadrant of the labour market Sales postings make up. Last 90 days, by real posting date. Each quadrant’s name opens it on the overview, across every program.

What the four quadrants are cut on. The capabilities a posting asks for, read from its description. A role naming three or more distinct engineering capabilities has builder depth; three or more business capabilities gives business depth. Both is Hybrid, neither is AI-thin. There are four because two yes-or-no tests cross, which is what makes them quadrants rather than a list. The threshold of three is the one the source analysis used, adopted rather than reinvented so the two stay comparable.

The 15,655 postings drawn here are this program’s share of the panel: postings carrying a real posting date from the last 90 days in the United States that the discipline classifier assigns to it. A posting can count toward more than one program. Quadrants with fewer than 20 postings are left out, and AI shares are withheld below 200.

What each quadrant asks for

Ranked by how far Business-deep AI sits from the other quadrants, not by how often the item appears. The bar is this region; the ticks are the others. An item everybody asks for tells you nothing about where you are.

Dispositions

O*NET work styles: how somebody works rather than what they know. A framework laid over the terms, not the terms themselves.

The clean comparison on this page. O*NET work styles take no part in the quadrant cut, so a gap here is a finding rather than arithmetic.

  • Dependabilityabout 37 in 100 postings ask for this
    37%+9.6 points vs the other three
  • Initiativeabout 57 in 100 postings ask for this
    57%+7.5 points vs the other three
  • Leadershipabout 22 in 100 postings ask for this
    22%−6.8 points vs the other three
  • AI-era (extension)about 8 in 100 postings ask for this
    7.5%−6.0 points vs the other three
  • Cooperationabout 80 in 100 postings ask for this
    80%+5.6 points vs the other three
  • Social Orientationabout 31 in 100 postings ask for this
    31%+5.2 points vs the other two
  • Achievement/Effortabout 16 in 100 postings ask for this
    16%+5.2 points vs the other two
  • Stress Toleranceabout 31 in 100 postings ask for this
    31%+4.9 points vs the other three

Shares are of postings in this region over the last 90 days, by real posting date, in the geography chosen above. These figures were fixed to the United States until 22 September 2026 and could not follow that choice; they can now.

Where these numbers come from

32,441 Sales postings have been collected in all. The figures above use 15,655 of them: the last 90 days (30,825), and of those, the ones in the United States. Each bar is one source.

The sources ask for AI at very different rates because they were collected for different reasons, so the 42.2% AI share at the top of the page is a mix of them and moves with that mix. Compare sources side by side rather than reading the pooled figure as the market’s. How each source is collected, and why they are never pooled for the market figures, is under the four sub-corpora on the research page.

What this page cannot tell you yet

No job titles from this program

The rules matching postings to this discipline were written without input from the people who know where these graduates go. Titles you supply become candidate rules, measured against the corpus before anything is published.

No employers from this program

None of the employers who actually hire your graduates have been named, so the panel can only describe firms that happen to post on the boards already collected. Named employers are resolved to their public job feed and collected directly.

Two things from you change all of the above. The job titles your graduates commonly take, and the employers who commonly hire them. Titles become candidate classifier rules; employers become collection targets, deduplicated across every program so the ones several of you name independently get resolved first.

Sign in to add them. Everything you enter is stored as a claim from your program, never merged into the posting evidence, and shown with your program named beside it.

How the panel is built · Methodology