It's not obvious to me why this is a bad thing. I agree that incentivising a box-ticking mindset discourages ownership and initiative. But for software engineers I feel like there has to be some methodical (and transparent) way for raises to be assigned, and for it to relate to skills and traits. Otherwise you can easily end up in a situation where people are rewarded for being bolshy and savvy rather than valuable to the company.

Am I missing something here?

Ah, 2015.

Well, it infuriates me just the same. If a coffee shot costs the same or more that some other food that is healthy and gives you more calories and/or nutrients. And I say this as a coffee lover.

But beside specific examples nitpicking, I understand the gist of it, and I understand the market reasons - you want to attract or retain talent and they/we look at compensations on a market level - but this still doesn't mean it is fair. Unless you believe in fairy tales and invisible hands.

You're trying to change which definition of fair is being used.

It's fair in that it's "fair market value" because that's what the market is willing to pay.

That's clearly the version the author is using given the example.

In terms of career development. Ppl aren't promoted for their ability to make "plans" or execute them. Ppl are promoted into those promotions for being trustworthy by ppl above them .

To get to that position, you should be

1. be people oriented. Genuinely like ppl around you from your heart ( not fake it) . Take the first step and build genuine love for your colleagues.

2. consistenly deliver results and become the person that can be trusted by person that gave you the assignment. Building trust is the main job when you go work. Its not writing some badass code or being innovating or whatever.