Glassdoor has released its annual list of the best jobs in America for 2018, ranked based on earning potential, job satisfaction, and availability. For the third year running, data scientist took the top spot, while other data and technology roles dominated the list, such as DevOps engineer (#2), electrical engineer (#6), mobile developer (#8), and manufacturing engineer (#10). All in all, technical roles make up 20 out of the 50 best jobs. The rest of the list comprises a variety of management roles, as well as several jobs in the health care sector.
“But there are at least four new titles on the list that help crunch that data and make decisions based on what they suggest,” Washington Post columnist Jena McGregor points out:
These include strategy managers (No. 7), business development managers (No. 14), business intelligence developers (No. 42) and business analysts (No. 43), each of which make the list for the first time, said Scott Dobroski, a career trends analyst at Glassdoor.
“There’s always a lot of tech jobs and health-care jobs — that’s not new and not going away anytime soon,” Dobroski said. “But the biggest trend this year was this emerging theme of business operations,” he said, or people “who make sense of all that data and recommend business decisions.” Many of the people hired for these jobs, he said, are former consultants who companies are bringing in-house to help with strategic and market decision-making.
“Maybe the occupational therapist and the HR manager jobs are in there because those folks are needed to deal with anyone who is not already a data scientist?” GeekWire’s Kurt Schlosser quips.
Google has released a series of updates to improve its Google for Jobs search offering in the US, the most notable of which is the addition of estimated salary range information using data from sites such as Glassdoor, Payscale, Paysa, and LinkedIn, based on job titles, location, and employer. Google for Jobs is also now available on tablets, after launching on desktop and mobile only, and job searchers are able to filter opportunities based on distance within 200 miles of a location, as well as apply for any jobs they find using the platform of their choice, when the listing appears on more than one. In addition, Google says users will soon be able to save job listings to view later and/or sync across their devices.
Google for Jobs launched for in late June, getting the search giant into the business of matching employers with prospective employees. The company said that it did not intend to compete with existing job boards, but rather serve as an aggregator of listings and establish itself as the first place someone would go to look for a job. To that end, according to Google, job listings from almost two-thirds of US employers have now appeared in search results since the service launched, and with this week’s improvements, their piece of the job-search pie is likely to grow, and Google for Jobs is still only available in the US.
The company has had a busy year in the job search space. Google launched the recruitment app Hire in July, and has also begun beta testing a cloud-based, AI-powered job discovery platform that supports over 100 languages. That product, called Cloud Job Discovery, is designed to help staffing agencies, job boards, career sites, and applicant-tracking systems link together to fill positions. Google says that the candidate-experience platform Jibe was able to use the service to increase high-quality job applicants for roles at Johnson & Johnson by 41 percent, as well as increase career-site clickthroughs by 45 percent.
In 2014, when CEB, now Gartner, last took a deep look at employer branding, we concluded that companies needed to shift their strategies from branding that attracts candidates to branding that influences their career decisions, encouraging the right candidates to apply as opposed to the most candidates, and directing others elsewhere. At the time, most companies were receiving a high volume of applications and needed to to use their branding strategy to separate the best from the rest.
Today, the circumstances have changed: Applicant volume has declined, but the candidates companies need are becoming harder to find. In 2016, 39 percent of all job postings by S&P 100 companies were for just 29 critical roles, including technical occupations like software developers and information security analysts. Competition for critical talent is only projected to get tougher in the coming years, as the growth of aggregate demand continues to outpace supply.
At the same time, we’ve seen an explosion of investment in recruiting technologies and an expanding number of candidate-focused platforms. These include employer rating platforms like Glassdoor and Comparably, as well as skill-based communities like Github and Stack Overflow. With the proliferation of these resources, candidates are exposed to a much larger amount of information about their prospective employers, most of which is out of those organizations’ hands. Today, 80 percent of the information that influences a candidate’s decision to apply comes from external sources such as these platforms and social media, and only 20 percent comes from employers themselves.
At our ReimagineHR conference in Washington, DC, on Thursday, CEB advisor Dion Love led a panel discussion with Michael Cox, SVP of Talent Solutions at Comcast, Susan LaMotte, founder and CEO of the employer brand and talent consultancy Exaqueo, and Jim McGrath, talent acquisition executive at Danaher, on how organizations need to re-strategize their employer branding for this new recruiting environment.
The company worked with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law on the new policy, and that organization’s president, Kristen Clarke, contributed a statement to go with Glassdoor’s announcement:
Without access to employment, people with criminal records are placed on a path to failure and unable to take the steps necessary to successfully reintegrate into their communities. This is especially true for African-Americans and other minorities who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. As we continue our work to ensure equal opportunity for all citizens, we applaud Glassdoor for leading in this important effort to help eliminate restrictive and discriminatory criminal background screening practices faced by minority communities across our country.
A whopping 75 percent of US workers between the ages of 18 and 34 expect their employer to take positions on social issues affecting the country, such as civil rights, immigration, and climate change, a new survey from Glassdoor finds:
Furthermore, nearly four in five (84 percent) U.S. workers believe companies have an important voice in proposed legislation, regulation and executive orders that could affect the employer’s business or the lives of employees. …
The Glassdoor survey reveals that employees expect employer engagement on timely political and social issues. “Today’s informed candidates want to work for companies that are actively engaged on topics that directly impact their lives and align with their beliefs,” said Dawn Lyon, Glassdoor chief reputation officer and senior vice president of global corporate affairs. “Today’s candidates, especially younger job seekers, want to work at companies that take a stand and take action.”
These findings echo another study released earlier in the year, in which a majority of millennials said they thought CEOs and other business leaders should play an activist role and take public positions on social issues. CEOs are taking notice of this generational change: At the Fortune and Time CEO Initiative conference on Monday, PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi and Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini remarked on how the millennial generation was changing the role of the CEO:
According to Nooyi, one factor is a changing workforce, which is now heavily populated with millennial workers who want their employers to embrace social issues. “They no longer look at is as [just] a paycheck,” she said. “They look at it as ‘How can I go to work and make a difference in society?’” The Pepsi CEO said that part of a chief executive’s duty today is to ensure that a company’s business goals align with initiatives that make a positive difference in the world. “We had to weave purpose into the core business model of the company,” Nooyi said. …
Numerous tools and websites have emerged in recent years that have given employees increased access to compensation data (such as Glassdoor, Payscale, and Salary.com, to name a few). This increased transparency has fundamentally changed how employees, managers, and employers need to think about compensation conversations. Many employers are now actively debating whether to become more transparent about compensation, and some may feel like they have no good options. Publicizing what everyone in the company earns, after all, can be a blow to morale when employees find out their peers make much more than they do but don’t understand why.
On the other hand, keeping pay information under wraps looks increasingly like a losing battle, and may harm performance in a different way: A recent study highlighted at the Association for Psychological Science found a correlation between pay secrecy and a deterioration in team communication and performance:
In [Cornell University professor Elena] Belogolovsky and colleagues’ new study, 146 business students at a Singaporean university were told they would be solving a series of puzzles for cash prizes. … The students were told they could earn up to 8 Singapore dollars (around $6 US dollars) per round over 6 rounds depending on both their individual performance relative to the other members of their team and whether they were a “team player.”
In the secrecy condition, the students’ score was displayed along with their cash payment for that round. In the transparency condition, their score was shown along with a bar graph displaying their pay relative to that of their team members. Throughout the experiment, confederates followed a pre-scripted schedule of requests for help, and the speed and quality of their helpful responses were also pre-scripted. The results suggest that pay transparency encouraged participants to go to the most skilled individuals for help. When pay was secret, participants had no way to accurately judge their colleagues’ expertise and were less likely to turn to the most qualified “expert” teammate for help.
Many employers are understandably wary of sites like Glassdoor that allow employees and job candidates to publicly post anonymous reviews of their current or prospective employer, which can create tension between employees’ free speech rights and employers’ rights to be protected against costly defamation. In the age of social media, however, managers who would hope to put a lid on this pot are probably fighting a losing battle, and it is becoming increasingly important for organizations to pay attention to how online reviews affect their employer brand. Last week, CIO’s Sharon Florentine highlighted a recent survey from Future Workplace and CareerArc exploring the influence of online reviews on job candidates’ perceptions of an employer. Candidates are more likely than ever to research a prospective employer online before applying, the survey found, and are making more decisions based on those reviews:
[J]ob seekers increasingly trust reviews from other candidates and current employees to give them the lay of the land before applying. One in three job seekers has shared at least one negative review of a previous or prospective employer, and 55 percent of job seekers who have read a negative review have decided against applying for a position at that company, according to the survey. The survey also found that those employees and job seekers who do leave online negative reviews are 66 percent more likely to spread those opinions on social media, compared to those who only share their opinions directly with a friend or colleague.
And job seekers give more weight to the opinions of their fellow candidates and employees than a company’s official stance. The survey showed that job seekers rank current employees as the most trusted source for information about a company, followed by online reviews from job applicants and former employees, respectively. The CEO or other company executives were ranked the least trusted source by job seekers.