If a 'mission that matters' is important enough to spend 3 paragraphs on, but salary only deserves a single dismissive paragraph, then why exactly do we never have enough teachers?

If people really had such a great preference for mission over compensation, then the public sector, and non-profits could be 'selective'. I mean, the public and non-profit sector usually don't even have to do bullshit PR vanity projects (cough Microsoft-Google-Facebook-Amazon-Exxon-GE-BP) to convince people that they are not evil on balance. Still, it's the massively profitable companies that have the luxury of selectivity, not the ones with the best missions.

Like so much in 'management methodology' literature, there is such a willingness in this article to prefer anything (like small ungeneralizeable psychology studies[1]) that confirm clearly absurd magical beliefs (e.g. there are easy cheap scalable alternatives to compensation for retaining employees) that it is impossible to take the advice therein remotely seriously.

[1] that are being misinterpreted, to boot

[edit: added the footnote, grammar]