Best States for Natural Sciences Managers: Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey Lead on Pay and Scale

Across the top 10 states in LaborCove’s rankings for natural sciences managers, there are clear differences in how salary and employment levels line up with overall Geography Scores. Some states stand out for substantially higher median salaries than the national figure, while others combine more moderate salaries with relatively large employment counts. The rankings show that a higher salary does not always correspond to a higher LaborCove Geography Score, so geographic comparisons benefit from looking at multiple measures at once instead of focusing on a single number.

For natural sciences managers across the United States, the national median annual salary is $167,220. Several of the top‑ranked states have median salaries above this mark, including Massachusetts at $267,290, California at $210,230, and New Jersey at $207,030. National employment for this occupation is 108,690. Within that national total, California has an employment count of 14,950 natural sciences managers, while Massachusetts has 10,590 and New Jersey has 10,040. The national projected employment growth rate of 3.7% describes how employment in this occupation is expected to change across the entire country. It does not represent or imply any projected growth rate for individual states such as California or Massachusetts, and no state‑level growth projections are supplied in this evidence.

Massachusetts holds the #1 rank in LaborCove’s state results for natural sciences managers, with a LaborCove Geography Score of 77.61. Its median salary of $267,290 is higher than the national median and higher than the median salaries in the other nine top‑ranked states listed in this article. California ranks #2 with a LaborCove Geography Score of 74.95. Its median salary of $210,230 is also higher than the national median of $167,220, but lower than the Massachusetts median of $267,290. California’s employment count of 14,950 natural sciences managers is larger than Massachusetts’s 10,590 and larger than New Jersey’s 10,040. New Jersey ranks #3 with a Geography Score of 61.98. Its median salary of $207,030 is below California’s $210,230 but above the national median of $167,220. New Jersey’s employment count of 10,040 is slightly smaller than Massachusetts’s 10,590.

Several states in the top 10 combine high median salaries with varying Geography Scores. Connecticut, ranked #8, has a median salary of $210,670, which is higher than California’s $210,230 and higher than the national median of $167,220. However, Connecticut’s LaborCove Geography Score of 39.92 is lower than California’s 74.95. Washington, ranked #7, has a median salary of $182,480, which is higher than the national median and higher than Pennsylvania’s $137,900. Washington’s Geography Score of 40.96 is slightly higher than Connecticut’s 39.92 but lower than Maryland’s 42.16. Maryland itself ranks #5 with a Geography Score of 42.16 and a median salary of $168,620. Maryland’s median salary is slightly higher than the national median of $167,220, but lower than Washington’s $182,480 and lower than Connecticut’s $210,670, even though Maryland ranks above both Washington and Connecticut in the Geography Score ordering.

Within the top 10 states, California has the largest employment count at 14,950 natural sciences managers. Massachusetts follows with 10,590, and New Jersey has 10,040. All three states have higher employment counts than Pennsylvania at 7,980 and Texas at 7,470. North Carolina, ranked #4, has an employment count of 6,010, which is higher than Washington’s 2,490 and Connecticut’s 1,190. North Carolina’s employment count is smaller than California’s 14,950 and smaller than Massachusetts’s 10,590. New York, ranked #10, has 5,690 natural sciences managers, which is smaller than Pennsylvania’s 7,980 and smaller than Texas’s 7,470, but larger than Washington’s 2,490 and larger than Connecticut’s 1,190. These differences show that states with similar rankings can have substantially different employment totals even within the same top 10 group.

North Carolina ranks #4 with a Geography Score of 43.91 and a median salary of $173,870. Its Geography Score is higher than Pennsylvania’s 41.70 and higher than Washington’s 40.96. North Carolina’s median salary is also higher than Pennsylvania’s $137,900 and higher than Texas’s $129,960. Pennsylvania ranks #6, with a Geography Score of 41.70 and a median salary of $137,900, both lower than North Carolina’s Geography Score and median salary. Pennsylvania’s employment count of 7,980 is larger than North Carolina’s 6,010 and larger than Washington’s 2,490. Texas ranks #9, with a Geography Score of 39.20 and a median salary of $129,960. Texas’s Geography Score is lower than Pennsylvania’s 41.70 and lower than New York’s 38.54 by a smaller margin. Texas’s employment count of 7,470 is larger than New York’s 5,690, even though Texas ranks higher than New York and has a lower Geography Score.

The top 10 LaborCove states for natural sciences managers illustrate how salary, employment, and Geography Score can point in different directions. For example, Massachusetts and California both have median salaries above the national figure, but their Geography Scores and employment counts differ. Similarly, Connecticut’s median salary exceeds California’s, yet California ranks higher on the Geography Score. Because the national projected employment growth rate of 3.7% is a national‑level figure and not a state projection, it should be used only as context when reading these state comparisons. The state data here provide a snapshot of compensation, employment counts, and relative Geography Scores, which users can weigh alongside their own preferences and additional information beyond this dataset. These rankings are best treated as a structured starting point for evaluating where to work as a natural sciences manager rather than as a prediction of personal outcomes in any particular state.

LaborCove’s state rankings for natural sciences managers are based on structured labor‑market data and the LaborCove Geography Score methodology. For this article, we use national and state data for occupation 11-9121, Natural sciences managers. The national benchmarks (median annual salary, employment, and projected employment growth) provide context for comparing states. National projected employment growth of 3.7% applies to the occupation across the United States as a whole and is not a state‑level or metro‑level projection. State‑level evidence supplied for this article includes median annual salary, employment counts, and LaborCove Geography Scores for 49 geographies. The reference period for the underlying OEWS observations is May 2025. Report year 2026 describes the product year, not the observation year. Rankings should be considered alongside a person’s own career priorities, since the Geography Score reflects LaborCove’s methodology rather than any prediction about an individual’s job outcomes in a given state.