Published EA starting-salary benchmarks rose, but that does not prove incumbent salaries rose at the same rate. Specialist scope and evidence carry more weight than title tenure.
The central argument
Salary guides describe a market for new hires, not a guaranteed pay rise for every current EA. The premium is increasingly attached to scope: C-suite exposure, governance, specialised sectors, complex stakeholders and evidence of independent judgement.
What changed
Published hiring ranges have moved in parts of the market
Employers distinguish general support from senior executive-office scope
Package structures vary across public, private and nonprofit roles
Location premiums do not apply evenly to every employer or role
What it means for EAs
Title tenure is not enough to justify the top of a band
Candidates need to compare responsibility as well as headline salary
Superannuation, FTE, bonus and salary packaging can reverse an apparent ranking
A lower base may still create a stronger long-term career move
Where candidates get caught
Quoting a package as though it were base salary
Using a national midpoint without considering city or sector
Assuming advertised maximums are automatic
Accepting broader scope without corresponding authority or development
Career actions
01Normalise every offer to full-time base plus super
02Build a responsibility comparison before negotiating
03Use two or three relevant benchmarks rather than one
04Anchor salary expectations to evidence and scope
Interview intelligence
Questions that expose the real operating model
Is the figure base salary or total package?
Where is appointment normally made within the band?
What bonus, allowance or salary packaging applies?
Which responsibilities distinguish this level from the role below?