Well, of course. So a typical company with a boring business[0] shouldn't expect that people they hire will suddenly develop deep love towards the company and the business it's in.
> Very few companies have the luxury of hiring passionate programmers who are also interested in making the business succeed.
Exactly. Very few companies need that luxury, too. That's why I'm saying this article is an example of complaining about not getting more than one should be getting. When you hire someone to do the job right, you require them to do the job right[1]. Asking them to behave like a co-founder, except without equity and any decisionmaking capability, is a bit much.
--
[0] - I'm not saying "not important". Driving a garbage truck or managing payroll data are examples of jobs that are boring, that don't "change the world" by themselves, but are nonetheless very important - each instance of such a job is a crucial thing for a segment of society that benefits from it directly.
[1] - And in our industry, that does involve letting them run some of the show. When you hire an expensive specialist, you do that because they have the knowledge and experience you don't have (or don't have time to use yourself).
That might be the right trade off if the domain knowledge is a lot more valuable than the benefits of the newer tech, but it's still a trade off.
Er, I suspect this would make it impossible to staff 90% of positions in programming. If I thought a business were exciting, I would be a specialist in that business, not in programming - or I'd be a very lousy 9-to-5 programmer, because my passion lies elsewhere.
Very few companies have the luxury of hiring passionate programmers who are also interested in making the business succeed; most of them just want their payroll system chugging along and someone to sort out their Excel when it breaks.