Executive Assistants: The Most Underrated, Undercompensated Power Players in the Company

Top-producing Executive Assistants are often seen as the glue that holds executives and companies together, yet their contributions are consistently downplayed, under-compensated, and misunderstood. While most employees' roles have clear, singular focus and well-defined goals, EAs juggle multiple stakeholders (read: "extra bosses"), responsibilities, and constantly shifting priorities, making their impact far more difficult to quantify.

Yet, the question remains: How is this role—so essential to an executive’s productivity and a company’s success—still viewed as secondary or “supportive,” rather than pivotal? The answer lies in the invisible nature of EA work.

The Reality of EA Responsibilities

EAs don’t just "assist" anymore. They're strategists, project managers, gatekeepers, and in many cases, decision-makers without the title. Their responsibilities span across an entire spectrum, from managing high-profile relationships with external stakeholders to coordinating complex business operations behind the scenes.

A survey conducted by The Executive Assistant Academy found that the average EA supports over 25 individual projects at any given time, involving multiple internal departments and external stakeholders. On top of that, 75% of EAs report that they are expected to be on call 24/7, handling last-minute changes, crises, and new directives that could come at any time.

The Unseen Work

While most employees work within clear lines of accountability, The EA role operates in the gray areas. They’re expected to:

• Anticipate needs before they arise.
• Course-correct on the fly when plans shift.
• Handle emotional labor, managing relationships and conflicts.
• Maintain confidentiality and discretion at the highest levels.
• Coordinate with numerous stakeholders with their own agendas and timelines.

All of this while still executing the administrative functions that ensure the day-to-day runs smoothly. Unlike traditional roles where deliverables and success metrics are clear, much of the EA's work is about making things easier for their executives—smoothing the friction in daily operations. Ironically, the better they do their jobs, the more invisible their efforts become and harder to quantify when performance reviews roll around.

Compensation: A Discrepancy in Value

Given the sheer complexity and magnitude of their roles, one would assume that EAs are compensated handsomely. However, data tells a different story.

A report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the median annual salary for an Executive Assistant in the U.S. is $63,110, with senior EAs sometimes reaching up to $90,000 annually. Compare this to roles like project managers, who often have a much narrower scope of work but earn an average of $96,000 per year. A senior human resources manager, whose accountability often revolves around a single department, can pull in well over $120,000 annually.

The difference? Those roles have clear, quantifiable deliverables tied directly to company goals, which makes them easier to justify in terms of compensation. EAs, on the other hand, are measured more by the ease they create for others—facilitating the work of their executives and teams—but their direct contribution to company performance is harder to pin down on paper. This results in EAs working, often, harder and with longer hours than most others in the company but compensated far less than their contribution.

More Responsibilities, Less Recognition

Let’s break it down further:

• Multiple Stakeholders: An EA isn’t just accountable to one executive; they often work across multiple departments, external clients, vendors, and teams.
• Constant On-Call Expectation: While many employees have clear boundaries and working hours, EAs are expected to be on call constantly—whether that’s handling emergencies, managing last-minute travel changes, or preparing for next-day meetings.
• Emotional Labor: EAs often take on the role of mediator and counselor, especially when it comes to managing high-level relationships both internally and externally. This level of emotional intelligence, while crucial, is rarely acknowledged when it comes to performance reviews or salary discussions.

The Numbers Don't Lie

A study by Robert Half found that 57% of executives admitted they would be "lost" without their assistants. Despite this, the same study reported that 42% of EAs felt they were undercompensated for the value they provide, with many reporting that their compensation had remained stagnant despite increasing responsibilities. Additionally, the workload for EAs has grown significantly: 65% of EAs report their job has expanded beyond the traditional scope over the past three years, yet only 29% of those individuals saw a corresponding pay increase.

The Case for "Hazard Pay" in Executive Assistant Compensation

One of the most overlooked elements of the EA role is the sheer intensity and high stakes of the job—constant availability, perfection under pressure, and navigating the volatile moods of disorganized executives are just a few of the challenges. Executive Assistants are often expected to be "on" 24/7, dealing with sudden schedule changes, emergencies, and unpredictable demands, all while maintaining impeccable professionalism. Taking time off is often more of a negotiation than a right, as the executive’s needs don’t pause for vacations or holidays. Add to this the balancing act of managing delicate hierarchies—internally and externally—and it’s clear that the EA role involves considerable personal sacrifice, emotional labor, and professional risk.

Yet, despite these challenges, the EA’s compensation rarely reflects the hazardous nature of their responsibilities. In high-pressure environments, such as supporting demanding, high-touch executives, the stress and unpredictability of the job should be factored into salary negotiations. This is where the concept of “hazard pay” comes in. In industries like construction or emergency services, where workers are exposed to higher risks, hazard pay is standard practice. EAs, though not in physical danger, are constantly exposed to the emotional and professional hazards of working with difficult personalities, high expectations, and unforgiving timelines.

A fair value for "hazard pay" could be calculated as an additional 15-20% on top of base compensation, acknowledging the intensity of the role and the personal cost of constant availability. This "hazard pay" should be non-negotiable for EAs supporting high-level executives who demand exceptional performance under pressure. Including it as part of compensation packages or using it as a negotiating tool allows EAs to advocate for the true value they bring to the organization, especially when their work keeps high-stakes executives functioning at their best.

It's Time to Reassess EA Compensation

The reality is clear: Executive Assistants are running the show without the recognition, title, or compensation that their level of responsibility merits. While many executives may not realize the scope of what their assistants handle, it's undeniable that EAs are instrumental in keeping high-level operations running smoothly. Their adaptability, strategic thinking, and emotional intelligence make them invaluable—and that should be reflected in their compensation and career opportunities.

At the end of the day, if EAs weren’t doing their job so seamlessly, the cracks in the executive suite would show. It’s time the business world recognizes that value and rewards it accordingly.

In Conclusion

For too long, the work of EAs has been treated as secondary to "real" business functions. Yet, their role is far more complex, nuanced, and indispensable than most realize. As more EAs begin to take on increasingly strategic and managerial responsibilities, the conversation about compensation and recognition must shift. It’s time to rethink how we value and measure the contributions of those who are, more often than not, the linchpins of an organization’s success.