When boards begin a CEO search or compensation review, most start in the same place: What did similar associations pay their last CEO?
It is a reasonable instinct. But in the current environment, it can lead to an incomplete picture.
Over the past several years, the demands on association CEOs have shifted in ways that most compensation benchmarks have not caught up with. The role now routinely involves navigating regulatory complexity, managing hybrid and distributed teams, overseeing technology transformation, competing for talent against the private sector, and leading organizations through cycles of political and economic uncertainty.
That is a fundamentally different job than it was even five years ago. The compensation framework should reflect that.
The benchmarking conversation
Peer benchmarking is an important part of the process, and it should always be part of the equation. But the most common pattern we see is boards treating it as the only input, particularly when the comparison is limited to budget size.
Two associations with identical revenue can have wildly different leadership demands depending on their advocacy role, global footprint, governance structure, fundraising expectations, and the political environment they operate in. A $25 million trade association with a heavy regulatory portfolio and a global membership is a very different leadership challenge than a $25 million professional society with a domestic focus and a stable revenue model.
When boards rely solely on peer budget comparisons, they may end up with a compensation framework that does not fully reflect the role, which can make the search more challenging than it needs to be.
What candidates are experiencing
From the candidate side, the shift is just as real. Senior association executives today are more informed about their market value than they were a decade ago. Many have had conversations with recruiters across sectors. They understand what comparable roles pay in the corporate and government-adjacent worlds.
The result: candidates are increasingly thoughtful about whether an opportunity reflects the full scope of the job. When boards account for this shift, they are better positioned to build a strong candidate pool and move through the search process with confidence.
A fuller framework
Boards should absolutely understand what peer organizations pay. But that is the starting point, not the finish line. The fuller set of questions includes:
What is the strategic complexity of this role? What is the revenue responsibility? What political or regulatory environment does the CEO operate in? What is the fundraising expectation? How competitive is the talent market for this type of leader?
When you evaluate compensation through that lens, the picture changes considerably. And it tends to produce offers that actually attract and retain the caliber of leader the organization needs.
Peer compensation data matters. But when that data is outdated or narrowly drawn, it cannot tell the whole story. The deeper question is what it takes today to recruit and retain a leader capable of running a modern association.
David S. Martin is CEO and Founder of Sterling Martin, a national executive search firm specializing in associations, nonprofits, and mission-driven organizations. Sterling Martin is celebrating its 20th anniversary in 2026.