I find this article slightly odd. It sounds to me like the author got a raw deal. I've been in this situation before early my career. The old "we want to promote you but can't give you much more money, here's a bunch of vacation days instead". Guess what you do with vacation days when you have no money. Sit at home and be bitter about the fact that you can't afford to go any where. And you look for another job. > She…
Its not wrong for you to approach everything so skeptically, but I think you have to see it from the authors perspective: 1. He clearly has an altruistic bent (he'd just returned from the Peace Corp. in Kenya) 2. He liked his position for its flexibility and variety as noted throughout the article. I think the point of the article is that many people approach salary negotiations as an optimization of just salary. But…
Perhaps where I disagree with you (and others who have responded to me) is in how important it is to keep good employees. If the author really is worth more than the more senior staff, the company has failed itself tremendously by losing him. If he is worth more than the others today, what will he be worth in the future (what is his growth potential). Putting up roadblocks for growth in your employees has to be one of the worst things HR can do.