What Federal Data Says About Executive Assistant Compensation

The question this report can answer

Agencies and clients often ask what an executive assistant should cost. The honest answer depends on scope, location, employment model, and the difference between a pay benchmark and a fully loaded service rate. This report uses the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics occupational employment program, commonly called OEWS, to establish a defensible starting point. It does not produce a universal cost for an outsourced assistant, and it should not be used as though it does.

The relevant occupation is executive secretaries and executive administrative assistants, SOC code 43-6011. OEWS measures employees on payroll in nonfarm establishments and excludes self-employed workers, agricultural workers, and private household workers. That exclusion matters for an industry built around contractors, freelancers, and offshore staffing. The benchmark describes one segment of the labor market, not the entire supply of executive support available to a client.

What the headline numbers show

The Occupational Outlook Handbook reports a median annual compensation of 76,590 dollars for executive secretaries and executive administrative assistants as of May 2025. The broader secretaries and administrative assistants category had a median of 48,310 dollars in the same period. The gap is substantial and reflects the greater experience, discretion, and scope typically required in an executive office. It also confirms that a general administrative compensation level is not a reasonable proxy for executive-level support. The BLS occupational profile is the appropriate citation for these figures.

The same source reports 489,300 jobs in the executive secretary and executive administrative assistant category in 2025. Projected employment for 2035 is 489,200, a change of roughly zero percent and about one hundred fewer jobs. BLS projects 314,400 annual openings across the entire secretaries and administrative assistants group, but those openings are replacement openings rather than net new positions. A stable occupation with steady replacement demand behaves very differently from a growing one.

The distribution behind the median

A median is a midpoint, not a market rate for every scope. The BLS profile for the broader secretaries and administrative assistants group reports that the lowest ten percent earned less than 35,360 dollars and the highest ten percent earned more than 77,720 dollars in May 2025. Even within the narrower executive category, a newly promoted assistant and a chief of staff-level operator can sit at very different points. The median is useful for orientation, but a single number cannot benchmark a role that varies this much.

Percentiles are more useful when the scope is explicit. An assistant supporting one executive with routine calendar and travel work may sit near the middle of the executive range. An assistant supporting a CEO, a board, and a family office may sit well above it, especially in a major metropolitan market. The correct percentile is a judgment about the work, not a claim about the person's worth. Write the scope first, then choose the percentile, then document why.

What a fully loaded rate includes

The pay figure is not the cost of service. Employers pay payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, benefits, software licenses, equipment, recruiting, and management time. An agency also carries the cost of screening, replacement coverage, and the sales and account management that keep the relationship running. Those costs are not padding, and a client comparing a pay figure with an agency quote should ask for a line-item explanation rather than assuming the difference is margin.

That explanation should separate the worker's compensation from the service charge. It should also show which costs vary with the client's requirements, such as international coverage, travel, or after-hours support. A transparent quote helps the client decide whether to buy a narrower scope or accept a higher rate for a broader one. A single all-in number without a breakdown invites suspicion and makes it harder to adjust the service later.

Growth and openings are not the same signal

A zero percent projection can be misread as a weak market. The more useful reading is that the occupation is mature and that hiring demand is driven by turnover, retirement, and role changes rather than by category expansion. Employers still need to fill vacancies, and agencies still compete for experienced candidates. The absence of net growth does mean that a client cannot assume a rising tide will make a difficult search easier.

The BLS outlook also notes that technology and changing management practices affect demand. Some executives now perform tasks that were once delegated, and some executive assistants support more than one manager. These changes do not eliminate the role, but they shift the mix toward coordination, judgment, and tool fluency. A compensation benchmark that ignores scope will underprice the work that remains most valuable.

Why the executive category is the right comparison

The broader secretaries and administrative assistants group includes legal, medical, and general office roles with different training and accountability. Using the all-category median to benchmark an executive assistant conflates a receptionist's scope with a role that may manage board logistics, confidential correspondence, and travel risk. The executive subcategory is narrower, but it is still not a perfect match for every placement. A chief of staff or a multi-executive support lead may sit above it.

The BLS data also does not capture bonuses, equity, benefits, or the cost of agency services. A client comparing a pay benchmark with an agency quote is comparing different things. The quote includes recruiting, screening, payroll, compliance, management, and replacement risk. Those costs are real, and a responsible comparison should separate the worker's pay from the service charge rather than treating the gap as pure margin.

Geographic and industry variation

OEWS publishes state and metropolitan estimates because pays vary considerably by labor market. An executive assistant in a large financial center may command a very different pay from one in a smaller city, even when the job description is similar. Remote work complicates the comparison further, because a client may hire from a lower-cost market while competing against local employers in a higher-cost one. The benchmark should be selected for the relevant geography and adjusted for the employment model.

Industry also matters. The Occupational Outlook Handbook reports that the largest employers of secretaries and administrative assistants include healthcare and social assistance, educational services, and professional, scientific, and technical services. Compensation levels differ across those settings, and the executive office within a hospital or a professional services firm may carry different expectations from a comparable title elsewhere. A single national median hides those differences.

How to use the benchmark in a staffing conversation

Use the federal figure as an anchor, then document the adjustments. A practical worksheet starts with the relevant percentile rather than the median, because a role that requires several years of executive support experience may sit above the midpoint. Add the cost of benefits, payroll taxes, software, equipment, management, and replacement coverage. Compare the result with the agency's fully loaded rate, not with the worker's take-home pay. The comparison should be transparent enough that a client can see each component. A capacity model can also show whether the proposed scope is realistic at the quoted hours.

A second useful step is to define the scope in measurable terms. How many executives does the assistant support, how many time zones, how much travel, and what level of decision authority? Those variables drive both the pay and the risk of turnover. A low rate attached to an underspecified role often becomes expensive when the assistant leaves or when the executive has to rebuild the support relationship. The benchmark is most useful when it is paired with a scope statement and a quality sampling method that shows whether the work is actually being delivered.

What the data cannot tell you

OEWS does not measure the quality of a placement, the cost of a bad hire, or the value of continuity in an executive office. It does not tell you whether an agency's screening process is effective or whether a candidate will fit a particular executive's working style. It also does not resolve the legal question of whether a worker should be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Those questions require separate analysis and, where appropriate, professional advice.

The data is a starting point for a budget conversation, not a verdict on a service. An agency that claims a precise market rate from a single national median is overstating what the source can support. A better practice is to cite the source, state the reference period, explain the adjustments, and show the range that results. That approach gives clients a defensible number without pretending the labor market is simpler than it is. If you want to apply this benchmark to a specific role, request a scoping conversation.