New research from Robert Half shows most companies are now factoring office attendance into pay and progression decisions – whether they admit it or not. Nicole Gorton, director at Robert Half, explains what this means for EAs, who are often office-based by necessity of the role.
Robert Half’s research shows 68% of companies have adjusted salaries based on office attendance. For office-based EAs, does this mean they’re benefiting from a proximity premium without realising it?
In some ways, yes. No employer is writing ‘office attendance bonus’ into a compensation framework; the premium is far more subtle than that.
It’s the executive who thinks of their EA first when a high-profile project needs support, the promotion conversation that happens because someone is simply present when it matters, and the institutional trust that builds quietly over months of shared physical space.
For EAs, this is how the advantage compounds – not through formal reward, but through accumulated visibility. Being in the room means being in the consideration set, repeatedly, over time.
The research found 77% of employers say proximity to leadership influences pay and progression. EAs already have high visibility with senior leaders. How should they think about this advantage, especially if they’re advocating for flexible work for their colleagues?
If proximity to leadership shapes pay and progression, and EAs are structurally closer to that leadership than almost anyone, they’re operating with an advantage many colleagues can’t access as easily.
It’s reasonable to acknowledge that EAs may benefit from being in the room, while others who work more flexibly or remotely have less visibility with decision-makers. The answer isn’t for EAs to downplay their visibility or feel guilty for a proximity that comes with the role – it’s to use that access thoughtfully.
That might mean naming the issue in conversation, sharing what they’re observing or encouraging the discussion to be taken to HR and policy leaders responsible for shaping fair, consistent flexible work practices.
You mention that proximity effects are “likely to be indirect”. Can you give a specific example of how this plays out in practice?
A CEO is about to head into a board meeting and realises they need someone to lead a last-minute briefing document. Rather than opening an org chart, they turn to whoever is physically nearby and trusted – in most cases, their EA. The EA landed the opportunity because they were present, capable and already in the exec’s orbit at the right moment.
Six months later, when that project becomes a visible success, the EA is attached to it in the executive’s mind. It’s not “I’ll pay you more because you came in”. It’s “you were here, I trust you, and now you’re part of something that matters.”
Multiply that across a year, and the career gap between the visible and the invisible starts to widen in ways that are almost impossible to trace back to a single cause.
Some organisations offer incentives – extra pay, higher bonuses, subsidised meals – to encourage office attendance. For organisations serious about fairness, what should they be doing instead?
Some prefer to invest in clearer output frameworks – defining what good work looks like in practical terms, setting expectations that can be assessed regardless of where someone is based, and helping managers evaluate contribution rather than presence. None of that is straightforward, but it creates a more consistent foundation for how people are recognised and rewarded.
There’s also a broader dynamic worth reflecting on. When organisations reach for financial incentives to encourage office attendance, it can suggest that trust between managers and employees has quietly eroded.
Addressing that directly (through transparency around decisions, performance recognition and progression) tends to be more effective over time than a subsidised lunch ever could.
Is there a risk that this proximity premium particularly disadvantages people with caring responsibilities who need flexibility – and office-based EAs might not notice this happening?
There’s a real possibility here. People with caring responsibilities frequently need flexibility not as a preference but as a practical necessity.
If visibility is gradually shaping who gets noticed and who gets opportunities, those who can’t always be present may find their careers moving more slowly, in ways difficult to trace back to any single decision.
For EAs, the most useful thing is simply to stay curious about whether the patterns they observe reflect performance or just presence – and if something feels off, raise it with HR.
