← All programs

Strategic Management

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 Strategic Management relates to the other programs

10,640 of the 277,185 postings in every geography in the last 90 days count toward Strategic Management (3.8%), the 5th largest of the 11 programs. 2,795 count toward it alone; 7,845 also count toward another program. 62.7% are AI-related, against 39.1% across all postings: the 1st highest of the 11 programs with enough postings to say.

Marketing: 26% in commonBusiness Management: 17% in commonInformation Systems: 6% in commonSales: 3% in commonEntrepreneurial Management: 1.0% in commonExperience Design and Management: 2% in commonHuman Resource Management: 3% in commonGlobal Supply Chain Management: 5% in commonAccounting: 5% in commonFinance: 6% in commonSTRAT in the middle; the other programs overlap it in proportion to what they share.

Strategic Management is the large circle. Each small circle overlaps it in proportion to how much of its job titles it shares with Strategic Management: 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 job titles

  1. Marketing26% in common6,562 postings count toward both

    product manager · senior product manager · director · product owner · staff product manager

  2. Business Management17% in common6,818 postings count toward both

    product manager · senior product manager · director · manager · product owner

  3. Finance6% in common233 postings count toward both

    director · manager · senior manager · product lead · vice president

  4. Information Systems6% in common6,414 postings count toward both

    product manager · senior product manager · director · manager · senior manager

  5. Global Supply Chain Management5% in common111 postings count toward both

    manager · director · senior manager

  6. Accounting5% in common55 postings count toward both

    manager · director · senior manager

  7. Human Resource Management3% in common67 postings count toward both

    director · manager · senior manager

  8. Sales3% in common178 postings count toward both

    director · manager · senior manager · vice president · senior director

  9. Experience Design and Management2% in common92 postings count toward both

    director · manager · senior manager · principal product designer

  10. Entrepreneurial Management1% in common25 postings count toward both

Commonest titles, only Strategic Management

  1. director 178
  2. chief of staff 143
  3. manager 75
  4. creative strategist 65
  5. senior manager 61
  6. senior director 56
  7. associate director 38
  8. strategist 35

Commonest titles, shared

  1. product manager 1,112
  2. senior product manager 1,056
  3. product owner 294
  4. staff product manager 255
  5. principal product manager 231
  6. product lead 219
  7. director 183
  8. technical product manager 180

“In common” is the share of the two programs’ job titles 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 Strategic Management postings fall across the four quadrants

Each bar counts Strategic Management 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 Strategic Management 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 10,640 postings drawn here are this program’s share of the panel: postings carrying a real posting date from the last 90 days in every geography 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 Builder-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.

Methods and practices

Ways of working, whether codified like Six Sigma or learned by repetition like presenting.

Partly definitional. Quadrants are cut on how many of these terms a posting names, so a quadrant leads on the terms that put it there. The ordering is still informative; the level is not a discovery.

  • Evalsabout 33 in 100 postings ask for this
    33%+30.1 points vs the other two
  • Product managementabout 21 in 100 postings ask for this
    21%−26.5 points vs the other three
  • System designabout 19 in 100 postings ask for this
    19%+17.4 points vs the other three
  • Roadmapabout 47 in 100 postings ask for this
    47%−13.0 points vs the other three
  • Experimentationabout 24 in 100 postings ask for this
    24%+11.0 points vs the other three
  • Prompt engineeringabout 12 in 100 postings ask for this
    12%+8.7 points vs the other two
  • Optimizationabout 24 in 100 postings ask for this
    24%+6.4 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

11,393 Strategic Management postings have been collected in all. The figures above use 10,640 of them: the last 90 days (10,614), and of those, the ones anywhere. Each bar is one source; 26 come from sources too small to draw.

The sources ask for AI at very different rates because they were collected for different reasons, so the 62.7% 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