Best States for Business Operations Specialists: California Tops Overall, While Washington and Maryland Pay More

Across the U.S., business operations specialists, all other, have a national median annual salary of $83,050 and national employment of 1,087,090 roles, with a supplied national projected employment growth rate of 3.0% for the occupation. Within that national picture, LaborCove identifies 50 ranked geographies, with the single largest state employment figure among the top states at 155,000. The top 10 state list reveals several distinct patterns. Some states stand out for higher salaries relative to the national median, others for larger employment counts within this occupation, and others for their overall LaborCove Geography Score and ranking. Because salaries, employment, and scores do not move in lockstep, each of the featured states shows a different balance of these factors. Among the top 10, California, Washington, and Maryland occupy the top three ranks, but Washington’s and Maryland’s median salaries are higher than California’s. Texas and Virginia appear with sizable employment counts and mid‑80s to low‑80s median salaries close to the national figure, while Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Alabama all show six‑figure or near‑six‑figure salaries paired with mid‑range employment levels. Utah rounds out the top 10 with a LaborCove Geography Score higher than Virginia’s but a lower median salary than the national benchmark. These results provide a structured view of how leading states differ numerically for this occupation. Career decisions will still depend on individual circumstances, but the comparisons below show where the data place the most emphasis in terms of pay, job counts, and overall state rankings.

At the national level, business operations specialists, all other, show a median annual salary of $83,050 and total employment of 1,087,090 roles. The supplied national projected employment growth rate of 3.0% applies to this occupation across the United States as a whole. Within that broader context, LaborCove tracks 50 state geographies for this occupation. Among the top‑ranked states, the single largest reported employment figure is 155,000 roles in California, which represents a notable share of the national total compared with other individual states in the top 10. Because the national projected growth rate is provided only at the occupational level, it is used here for nationwide context and not as a state‑specific projection for any of the individual geographies in the rankings.

California holds Rank #1 in the LaborCove state results, with a LaborCove Geography Score of 75.37. Its median annual salary for business operations specialists, all other, is $87,570, and its employment count of 155,000 is the highest reported figure among the top‑ranked states. California’s median salary of $87,570 is higher than the national median of $83,050, placing it above the national benchmark even though it is lower than several other top‑10 states’ salaries. California’s employment count of 155,000 is also larger than the job counts reported for Washington, Maryland, Texas, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Alabama, and Virginia, based on the supplied data. The combination of a salary level above the national median, the largest reported employment count in the top 10, and the highest LaborCove Geography Score in this group distinguishes California in these rankings, even though other states offer higher median salaries.

Several top‑10 states have median salaries above both the national benchmark and California’s figure. Washington, ranked #2 with a LaborCove Geography Score of 63.70, reports a median salary of $100,360 and employment of 51,650. Maryland, ranked #3 with a Geography Score of 61.90, shows a median salary of $101,500 and employment of 39,820. Both states therefore pair higher salaries than California’s $87,570 with employment counts that are smaller than California’s 155,000. Colorado, at Rank #5 with a Geography Score of 55.61, has a median salary of $92,520 and employment of 45,670. Massachusetts, ranked #6 with a Geography Score of 52.60, shows a median salary of $93,270 and employment of 17,910. New Jersey, at Rank #7 with a Geography Score of 52.56, reports a median salary of $91,060 and employment of 34,210. All three of these states have median salaries higher than the national median of $83,050 and higher than California’s median salary of $87,570. Alabama provides another example of relatively high pay within the top 10. Ranked #8 with a Geography Score of 49.82, Alabama shows a median salary of $100,240 and employment of 6,990. Alabama’s median salary is higher than the national median and higher than California’s median salary, while its employment count is smaller than those reported for California, Washington, Maryland, Texas, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia.

Texas is ranked #4 with a LaborCove Geography Score of 56.63, a median salary of $80,820, and employment of 104,270. Texas’s employment count is smaller than California’s 155,000 but larger than the employment figures supplied for Washington, Maryland, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Alabama, and Virginia. Its median salary of $80,820 is slightly below the national median of $83,050. Virginia, ranked #10 with a Geography Score of 47.81, reports a median salary of $85,200 and employment of 45,160. Virginia’s employment count is smaller than Texas’s 104,270 and larger than the employment counts supplied for Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Alabama. Its median salary of $85,200 is higher than the national median and higher than California’s $87,570? No—Virginia’s $85,200 is higher than the national median of $83,050 but lower than California’s median salary of $87,570. Together, Texas and Virginia illustrate how states with relatively larger employment counts in this list do not necessarily have the highest salaries. Their median salaries sit close to the national level, while their employment figures place them among the larger markets in the top 10 based on the supplied counts.

Utah appears at Rank #9 with a LaborCove Geography Score of 48.22, a median salary of $80,190, and employment data not supplied in this evidence. Utah’s Geography Score of 48.22 is higher than Virginia’s score of 47.81 even though Utah’s median salary of $80,190 is lower than both the national median of $83,050 and Virginia’s median salary of $85,200. Compared with California, Utah’s Geography Score of 48.22 is lower than California’s score of 75.37, and its median salary of $80,190 is lower than California’s $87,570. Compared with Washington, Utah’s Geography Score is lower than Washington’s 63.70, and its median salary is also lower than Washington’s $100,360. Because Utah’s employment count is not supplied, its position at Rank #9 and its Geography Score can only be compared directly on the dimensions of score and median salary where data are available. This underscores that LaborCove’s rankings reflect a blend of metrics, and that a state can rank within the top 10 even with a median salary below the national benchmark.

LaborCove’s state rankings for business operations specialists, all other, are built from structured labor‑market data combined into a proprietary LaborCove Geography Score. For this article, we use: - National median annual salary, national employment, and a national projected employment growth rate for the occupation. - State‑level median annual salary, employment counts (where supplied), and LaborCove Geography Scores and ranks for the top 10 states. The underlying occupational employment statistics refer to observations from May 2025. The report year 2026 reflects LaborCove’s publication and product cycle and is not the underlying observation date. The national projected employment growth rate is a separate nationwide projection for the occupation and is not a forecast for any specific state. No state‑level or metro‑level growth projections are used in these rankings. LaborCove’s Geography Score blends multiple inputs into a single value; the specific weighting of salary, employment, or other components is not disclosed in this evidence. Rankings are best used as a structured comparison tool alongside a person’s own priorities such as preferred location, role content, or non‑labor‑market factors that fall outside the scope of this data.