Best States for Chief Executives: California Ranks #1 as Smaller States Deliver Higher Pay

For chief executives, LaborCove’s state results show that the best-ranked locations do not simply follow salary alone. Oregon and Washington report higher median salaries than California but rank below it, while New York and Texas rank in the top 10 despite median pay below the national figure. California stands out as the top-ranked state and also has the largest reported employment count among these top geographies. Nationally, chief executive employment is projected to grow by 4.3%, providing overall context for these state-level pay and employment differences, though this projection is not broken out by state.

Before looking at states, it helps to anchor the occupation nationally. Chief executives have a national median annual salary of $213,990 and national employment of 204,350. Several top-ranked states deviate from this national pay benchmark in different directions. Washington’s median salary of $339,810, Illinois’s $331,920, Virginia’s $310,740, New Jersey’s $310,440, Oregon’s $341,630, North Carolina’s $314,290, New York’s $257,980, and Texas’s $257,850 all sit above the $213,990 national median. The national projected employment growth rate for chief executives is 4.3%. This figure applies to the occupation across the entire country and is not broken down by state in the supplied evidence, so it serves only as high-level context for the state comparisons that follow.

California ranks #1 in LaborCove’s state results for chief executives, with a Geography Score of 68.05. It reports a median salary of $218,600, which is higher than the $213,990 national median. California also has an employment count of 34,700 chief executives, which matches the largest employment market value cited in the geographic overview and is the highest reported employment figure among the top 10 states. Compared with New York’s 8,430 and Texas’s 8,780 chief executives, California’s count is substantially larger within this group. Despite its top ranking and largest reported employment, California’s median salary is lower than Washington’s $339,810, Illinois’s $331,920, Virginia’s $310,740, New Jersey’s $310,440, Oregon’s $341,630, and North Carolina’s $314,290. This illustrates that LaborCove’s Geography Score does not simply mirror the highest pay level.

Several states in the top 10 offer higher reported median salaries than California yet rank lower overall. Washington ranks #2 with a Geography Score of 57.22 and a median salary of $339,810, which is higher than both the national median and California’s $218,600. Illinois (#3) reports a median salary of $331,920, Virginia (#4) reports $310,740, and New Jersey (#5) reports $310,440; each of these salaries is higher than both the national median of $213,990 and California’s $218,600. Oregon, ranked #6 with a Geography Score of 50.99, has a median salary of $341,630, which is also above both the national figure and California’s reported pay. North Carolina, ranked #8, adds another example. Its median salary of $314,290 is higher than the national median and higher than California’s $218,600, despite North Carolina’s lower rank in the Geography Score results. These patterns underscore that higher salary alone does not determine a state’s overall LaborCove ranking in this dataset.

New York and Texas appear in the second half of the top 10 but still report median salaries above the national level. New York ranks #7 with a Geography Score of 50.44 and a median salary of $257,980, which is higher than the national median of $213,990. Texas ranks #10 with a Geography Score of 48.81 and a median salary of $257,850, also above the national figure. Both states stand out in employment size within the top 10 group. New York’s employment count of 8,430 chief executives and Texas’s 8,780 are each smaller than California’s 34,700 but larger than the reported employment counts for Washington (3,170), Illinois (4,620), Virginia (4,870), New Jersey (2,430), Oregon (910), and North Carolina (1,930). These combinations of above-national pay, mid-range Geography Scores within the top 10, and relatively large employment counts show that states can occupy different positions on each metric while still landing in the same overall best-states list.

Oregon, Washington, and North Carolina show that high median salaries can coexist with relatively smaller reported employment counts in the supplied top 10 states. Oregon ranks #6 with a Geography Score of 50.99, a median salary of $341,630, and an employment count of 910 chief executives. Washington, ranked #2, pairs its $339,810 median salary with 3,170 employed chief executives. North Carolina, ranked #8, reports 1,930 employed chief executives with a median salary of $314,290. In contrast, Illinois (#3) has 4,620 employed chief executives, Virginia (#4) has 4,870, and New Jersey (#5) has 2,430, all above Oregon’s reported employment count while also reporting median salaries above the $213,990 national figure. These differences highlight that high LaborCove rankings can be associated with varying employment sizes among the top states. Colorado, ranked #9 with a Geography Score of 49.46 and a median salary of $213,370, is the only top-10 state with missing employment data in the supplied evidence, so its employment level cannot be directly compared with the other states in this analysis.

LaborCove analyzes authoritative labor‑market data for chief executives (occupation code 11-1011) and applies its internal Geography Score methodology to compare states. For this article, we use the supplied national median annual salary, national employment, a national projected employment growth rate, and state-level median salaries, employment counts, and LaborCove Geography Scores. The underlying OEWS observations reference May 2025; the 2026 report year reflects the publication and product cycle, not the data collection date. LaborCove’s Geography Score summarizes how each state performs on the measured factors, but the exact contribution of each metric to the score is not disclosed here. Rankings should be interpreted as a structured comparison of the available numbers, not as a prediction of any individual executive’s likelihood of being hired or advancing. Readers should weigh these results alongside their own priorities, such as role fit, industry, and personal circumstances, which are outside the scope of this dataset.