I've got a handy list of "jobs my friends from school have now" for whenever a question like this comes up...

Personally, I work as a translator, which uses a lot of skills I learned in school - things like languages and writing skills of course, but even medieval palaeography comes in handy when I have to decipher handwritten medical notes. Maybe most importantly, I learned time management and stress management - for my first job as a translator, I was hired to replace a guy who had quit halfway through his first day. It was too stressful for a normal person, maybe? But it was nothing compared to grad school.

Some of the people I went to grad school with did end up being university professors, but many didn't. Some of them are editors for publishing companies (academic and popular), novelists, journalists, lawyers, priests, politicians, librarians, museum curators, elementary/high school teachers, musicians, actors (or people who are otherwise involved in the entertainment industry, costuming etc.), therapists, economists, some people joined the military...and I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting.

Some of these jobs required more education in a different field (library studies, museum studies, etc). So some people got their PhD and then went back to school for another degree. (I could have done that too, translators usually have at least a BA in translation studies.)

You probably won't find a job doing historical research, and most people who no longer work in the academic world don't seem to want to keep writing/researching/publishing. I still try though...I feel like I might be a bit delusional sometimes, trying to be an historian in my spare time. But there are tons of "independent scholars" or "alt-academics" or whatever we're calling ourselves these days, since there are simply too many PhDs and not enough teaching jobs.

So, there are lots of opportunities, with a bit of creativity and open-mindedness.

I have my MA in History and work in the Cultural Resource Management field as an architectural historian. I evaluate buildings for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places, most of my projects require historical research which is then used to craft an argument for/against its historical significance.

I also know some federal and state agencies hire historians, occasionally on a contract basis, to develop or curate institutional histories.

The FAQ section on History Careers and Education should have the answers you're looking for.

I think that the phrasing of this question is only going to bring out sucessful transitions, but I would also like to note that it has been my experience and the experience of others in my cohort, that a PhD is often an impediment to getting a non-academic job, much as the proponents would like to emphasize otherwise. You are generally more employable in a rare books librarian position with a MLS/MLIS/MIS than a specialized PhD in rare books. I know from a friend who transitioned to library science that there is a fair amount of prejudice against PhDs in the library science field outside of research libraries (since they are seen as a credential threat). Museum jobs often do not require a museum studies degree for the curator jobs, but that is a very difficult position to get and often involved highly-exploitative labour practices before it is awarded. I have personally found that even with tech skills, if you have a PhD on your resume, you are considered overqualified for entry-level jobs but underqualified for more senior jobs since you have not done the junior jobs. Employers have reported that they are worried that PhDs will go back to academia, that they are too specialized, or that they will think they are too good for a job.

This of course does not apply if you are getting a PhD in a hot field like oil exploration or computer science, but the question was about history PhDs, so caveat emptor.

Many federal agencies have historians, who are some combination of researcher, analyst, and archivist. Search USA Jobs (government hiring website) for the 0170 series to get a look at what is out there.

The Washington Post just had a story about one such historian, whose job is investigative

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/04/10/ice-war-criminals-latin-america/

Some jobs of history PhDs I know:

1. In research, mainly government or research foundation positions. These vary from civil servant in various gov departments in the US, Canada and the UK, and also research bodies in countries that have "foundations" (the German-speaking world is probably best for this, I know PhDs working in these foundations or research institutes in Germany and Austria).
2. A big part of the PhD is communication, language and writing. I know history PhDs working as translators (for the EU, for example). I also know PhDs working for global charities doing communication and communication strategies. I know one who is a novelist. I know one who is now a musician. Another writes for a website.
3. Although you said not teaching, there are other avenues here beyond university professor. I know PhDs working in private secondary schools in the USA and the UK. The one in the US is supported to continue doing some research and attending conferences. I also know some who moved into educational support and strategy within universities. This is valued differently in the various national systems - in many EU countries and at some universities in North America it can have comparable salary to equivalent years of experience in academic positions, but it's often valued less in, for example, the UK.
4. Additional training: I know history BAs and MAs who did further training to pivot into law, archives and museums. I know one PhD who is head of a small regional museum in the US, and they went directly from several years experience in their academic position into that role, not straight out of the PhD.

The academic job market in history is extremely difficult and transitioning to jobs outside academia after doing a history PhD is also often a challenging road. Begin preparing early and during your PhD (think about what you enjoy doing in your research, try writing for and speaking to different audiences during the PhD, engage with policy-makers, museums, think tanks, charities, etc. if your research is relevant to any of those, look at positions you might be interested in and what they ask of applicants so you can develop skills, etc). Good luck!

I have a doctorate in history and currently work at a history and decorative arts museum. You do NOT need a museum studies certificate or degree, although knowing museum-specific material helps,, like basic collections care procedures. People like me are getting more common, but that's because there are more people with doctorates than there are tenure-track academic jobs. Although it may seem straightforward, museums are not always great fits for people with doctorates, frankly. So, some thoughts on the academia-to-museum transitions:

Firstly, unless your research involved material culture studies, there isn't always direct relevance between your research and the museum's collection. Finding a job that lines up with your research is tough and competitive: i.e., there are probably a lot of more people who think they could work at the Museum of the American Revolution because of their PhD topic than there are jobs there. So be prepared to no longer be the expert on something, or rely on your general research skills to get quickly up to speed with a new topic. I personally find this energizing, but if you're really invested in your topic it's hard to abandon it. The great disclaimer here is that any art historian has obviously lots of relevance to art museums, but that's always been the case.

Secondly, while a few other people have noted the role of communicating research, museums exist to communicate to the widest possible audience and academia trains us to do the exact opposite. Imagine going from writing a 7,000-10,000-word article to a 250-word section panel in an exhibition, let alone a 30-50 word object label. It's a whole different skill. Furthermore, good museum writing is about prompting visitors to explore and ask questions; good academic writing argues and answers questions.

Thirdly, museums are inherently collaborative. Everything you write will get rewritten and edited by lots of people: exhibition text, gallery guides, interpretive material, your departmental update for the annual report...get used to not having your name on what you write and having lots of other people intervene. Again, I personally like the collaborative element but a lot of us academics are used to being lone wolves in the archives.

Fourthly, in which area of the museum do you fit? If you're a curator, you're a scholar of objects. Again, those are specialist and rare positions: in many ways they're the equivalent of tenure-tracked jobs, very rare, fought over, and dependent on specialist training and publications. Education? That's where a lot of us end up, but how easy is it to go from presenting at a conference to leading a program for 10-year-olds? I found it really tough. Development needs people who are intelligent generalists and can appreciate the collections on whose behalf they raise money, but you're not doing any programming, research, or education there.

Fifthly, be humble. You will move tables and chairs. You will clean up after the reception. And your museum colleagues know their stuff. They know a lot about the collection. They know their history. They probably have a broader basis of knowledge than you, because they've done umpteen exhibitions on umpteen topics and worked in multiple museums with very different collections and topics while you dedicated your time to honing your dissertation topic and quarrying a narrow sliver of human experience (which is, of course, a wonderful and meaningful thing to do). I've seen too many academics treat museums like they're doing us a favor by deigning to work with us, without realizing how many museum people have varied skills they've never had to dream of acquiring, which leads to my next point...

Sixthly, get good at Excel. There will be a budget. You will need to know how to make it make sense. Learn how to tactfully and politely manage--I think half my time is spent sending emails saying "just checking in about x" and the other half is spent responding to those from my colleagues. Learn some basics of marketing, which isn't just posting on social media and hoping people show up. Get an appreciation for how much complex work goes into fundraising.

Museums are wonderful places where you can see how and why history matters to people, in their lives. It is continuously excellent to engage people in history when that's there leisure activity or private passion, and not their job. But don't go into it assuming there's a direct corollary to what you've done before.

​

EDITED: I fixed some spelling mistakes and added two more points.

I have my MA in history with public history emphasis.

Like many have said, museums often have historian positions that is all about research and not curation or archival work. For instance the National WWII museum has a WWII historian job right now, that is not with curatorial or education. They're not necessarily looking for a museum studies degree

There's also business historians who write about the history of major corporations and organizations (ie Anheuser Busch, Federal Reserve, etc)

High level Park Rangers in the government so a lot of research and then do interpretation. It's a form of education but you're not bound by a university and having classes, etc. I loved my work in the National Park Service.

Cultural Resource Management is a big field due to Section 106 that requires historical and archaeological surveys.

Something to be aware of though, is historians are more and more being removed from their ivory towers and are expected to present their findings to the public in some fashion other than books and the classroom. I'm the Historian for my local parks department and do regular lectures and programs.

There are plenty of non-teaching roles for history Ph.D.'s, at least in theory. For example, I'm a researcher at a museum, and the only teaching I've done since I got my Ph.D. was some adjuncting on the side to make some extra cash. Since I'm not doing collections/curation/preservation/etc. I didn't need a background in library science or museum studies to do my job. I guess "well-paying" is in the eye of the beholder, but it's enough to put food on the table. Beyond the museum/library/archives world, there are also historians who are employed by various government agencies (I'm talking about the United States here but it may be true in other countries as well) to maintain the records and histories of those agencies.

Of course, in practice, these jobs are no different than traditional academic jobs in that there are far fewer new openings than there are new Ph.D.'s produced each year, so these jobs are just as competitive as academic jobs are, and your odds of landing one of them aren't great. It's good for people to think outside the box about how to use their Ph.D., but realistically, it's better for them not to put themselves in that kind of position in a first place. As always with these kinds of posts, I feel obligated to tell people that getting a Ph.D. in history is a bad career choice and that they shouldn't do it. It's "do as I say, not as I do," but it's the advice that people considering getting a Ph.D. need to hear, even if they don't want to follow the traditional academic career path.

I know this thread is a little dated, but I'd add that I'm a history PhD (2021) and I ended up working in an academic center. I guess you could call it a think tank, though we don't advise policy per se. Most of what I do is conduct research, generate new ideas, and lend occasional support to educational and outreach work. Compared to academia, the work requires less teaching, is more self-directed, and is more narrowly focused on particular subject areas deemed important by your boss.

You're also expected to turn work around faster and have a clear explanation for why your work is useful (read "sellable") to clients--which, if I'm honest, is quite a bit of a struggle for me.

My situation may be unusual. Most research jobs in my field require quantitative abilities and some amount of data visualization skills. I have none of those and all my work is qualitative. My dissertation also lined up with the interests of my organization, which was on a subject that's not as seemingly esoteric as my peers. Most importantly, I knew someone who remains well-connected and respected in the field, and who provided me a very strong recommendation. I can't stress enough how valuable having someone outside academia is for helping you get a job.

Happy to chat with anyone who wants to learn more, though I'll admit it's kind of a crapshoot out there.