Tom got three quotes for the same executive assistant role. One recruiter quoted 25% of first-year salary, paid in thirds. One staffing agency quoted an hourly bill rate with no explanation of what was built into it. One company quoted a flat $1,997 fee. All three were describing the same candidate pool, sourced from the same countries, with roughly the same skill level, and Tom had no framework for comparing them until he understood what each number actually represented. This article is that framework.
Key Takeaways for Business Leaders
- Four distinct pricing models exist in this market: traditional percentage-of-salary executive search, agency-managed recurring markup, direct-hire flat fee, and employer of record, and most buyers only ever get shown one.
- A staffing agency’s bill rate is built on what the industry calls a burden rate multiplier, typically 1.4x to 1.6x the assistant’s actual pay, covering payroll taxes, workers’ compensation, and margin, repeated every billing cycle.
- Author and former derivatives trader Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s “skin in the game” principle explains a structural difference: a flat-fee provider with a replacement guarantee absorbs the cost of a bad match directly; a recurring-fee provider often doesn’t.
- Traditional executive search firms like Korn Ferry and Heidrick & Struggles built their business on the percentage-of-salary retainer model, typically 25% to 33%, paid in three installments regardless of long-term fit.
- Employer of record companies such as Deel, Remote.com, and Oyster solve a real compliance problem- international payroll and labor law- but still charge an ongoing per-employee fee, closer in structure to agency-managed than to direct-hire.
- Over three years, a $2,000-a-month placement costs roughly $14,400 more under a 20% agency markup than under a one-time $1,997 direct-hire fee, a gap that keeps widening for every year the placement continues.
What Hiring Models Exist for a Virtual Executive Assistant?
Traditional Executive Search: A Percentage-of-Salary Fee
Executive search firms, Korn Ferry, Heidrick & Struggles, and Russell Reynolds Associates among the best known globally, typically charge a retained fee of 25% to 33% of the hire’s first-year salary, invoiced in three installments: one at engagement, one at candidate shortlist, one at placement. The candidate becomes your direct employee immediately, but the fee is calculated against a full local salary, which makes this model expensive fast when applied to a $70,000-plus US executive assistant salary.
Agency-Managed Staffing: The Recurring Markup Model
Staffing agencies, the model Robert Half has built much of its business around, keep the assistant as their own W-2 or equivalent employee and bill you a rate that bundles the assistant’s pay with a markup, commonly 15% to 20%, for as long as the placement continues. You are never the legal employer under this model.
Direct-Hire: A Flat, One-Time Recruitment Fee
Exec Assistants uses a fourth structure: A single $1,997 recruitment fee, paid once, after which the assistant is your direct employee with no recurring agency involvement in their pay.
Employer of Record: The Newest Model
Global employment platforms including Deel, Remote.com, Oyster, and Papaya Global have built a fast-growing model called employer of record, where the platform becomes the assistant’s legal employer for local tax and labor law purposes. In contrast, the assistant works day-to-day under your direction. This solves international compliance cleanly but still charges an ongoing monthly per-employee fee, structurally closer to agency-managed than to direct-hire.
What Does “Markup” Actually Mean When an Agency Quotes You a Rate?
The Burden Rate Multiplier Explained
Staffing industry practitioners describe the bill rate an agency charges using what’s commonly called a burden rate multiplier: the assistant’s base pay multiplied by a factor, typically 1.4 to 1.6, to arrive at what the client is billed. That multiplier bundles the employer’s share of payroll tax obligations, roughly 7.65% under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act in a US-based arrangement, workers’ compensation insurance, state unemployment insurance contributions, and the agency’s administrative margin, all rolled into one number the client sees as a single hourly or monthly rate.
A Real Example: What a $2,000 Assistant Actually Costs Under Each Model
Take an assistant earning $2,000 a month, $24,000 a year. Under a 1.5x burden rate multiplier, an agency-managed bill rate lands around $36,000 a year, a 50% markup baked directly into the invoice. Under Exec Assistants’ direct-hire model, the same $24,000 salary carries a one-time $1,997 fee in year one and nothing added in every year after.
Who Has “Skin in the Game” Under Each Model?
Taleb’s Concept of Incentive Alignment
Essayist and former options trader Nassim Nicholas Taleb argued in his 2018 book Skin in the Game that the most reliable way to judge whether a service provider can be trusted is to check what they actually lose if the arrangement fails, not what they promise. A provider who profits identically whether the placement is excellent or mediocre has weaker incentive alignment than one who absorbs a direct cost when a placement fails.
Why a Flat Fee Plus a Replacement Guarantee Changes the Vendor’s Incentive
Under Exec Assistants’ direct-hire model, a failed placement means the company sources and vets. It places a replacement for no additional fee, a direct, uncompensated cost that creates real pressure to vet the first time rigorously.
Why a Recurring Markup Can Quietly Reward Mediocre Placements
Under a pure agency-managed model, the burden rate multiplier generates revenue every billing cycle the placement continues, whether the assistant is exceptional or merely adequate. A mediocre hire that simply isn’t replaced produces the same ongoing revenue as a strong one, exactly the incentive gap Taleb’s framework flags.
What Happens If You Want to Switch Providers?
The Lock-In Risk Under an Agency-Managed Model
Because the assistant is legally employed by the agency, ending the agency relationship typically means losing the assistant entirely, along with the months or years of institutional knowledge, client preferences, and workflow familiarity they’ve built up. Economists call the resulting reluctance to switch a hold-up problem; the cost of walking away from a relationship exceeds the cost of tolerating a subpar arrangement.
Why Direct-Hire Avoids This Entirely
Under direct-hire, the assistant is your employee from day one. There’s no agency relationship standing between you and the person doing the work, so there’s nothing to be locked into beyond the working relationship itself.
How Do the Four Models Compare Financially Over Three Years?
| Model | Year 1 Cost | Year 2 Cost | Year 3 Cost | 3-Year Total |
| Executive search (28% retainer) | $24,000 + $6,720 = $30,720 | $24,000 | $24,000 | $78,720 |
| Agency-managed (1.5x burden rate) | $36,000 | $36,000 | $36,000 | $108,000 |
| Employer of record (~15% ongoing fee) | $27,600 | $27,600 | $27,600 | $82,800 |
| Direct-hire ($1,997 flat) | $25,997 | $24,000 | $24,000 | $73,997 |
The direct-hire total comes in lowest across all four models over three years, and the gap against agency-managed staffing specifically, $34,003, widens every additional year the placement continues.
Which Model Fits Different Types of Businesses?
When Agency-Managed or EOR Makes Sense
A business covering a defined, short-term gap, parental leave, a fixed-length project, or a market where it has no legal entity to employ someone directly has real reasons to accept the recurring fee in exchange for the agency or EOR platform absorbing the local compliance burden.
When Direct-Hire Makes Sense
A business hiring for an ongoing, trust-based role, exactly what an executive assistant position is, gains the most from a model that rewards retention rather than charging more the longer a strong hire stays in place.
What Questions Should You Ask a Provider to Find Out Which Model They Actually Use?
Ask who the assistant’s legal employer is once the placement is made. Ask for the exact burden rate multiplier or markup percentage if the quote is bill-rate based. Ask whether the fee is one-time or recurring, and get the answer in writing before comparing it against any other quote.
The Core Relationships This Comparison Comes Down To
A few of the relationships this article establishes directly, written as subject-predicate-object statements: agency-managed staffing charges a recurring burden rate multiplier. Direct-hire charges a one-time recruitment fee. Employer of record handles international payroll compliance. A replacement guarantee creates vendor skin in the Game. A hold-up problem creates client lock-in under agency-managed contracts. Exec Assistants uses a direct-hire model priced at $1,997.
How Exec Assistants Structures Its Direct-Hire Model
Exec Assistants charges the one flat $1,997 fee described throughout this comparison, places the assistant as your direct employee from day one, and backs the placement with a replacement guarantee that gives the company genuine skin in the Game to vet thoroughly upfront rather than profit from an ongoing markup regardless of fit. Book a discovery call and ask for the exact burden rate multiplier any competing quote is built on, then compare it directly against this one.