This is also relatively new and it takes time for traditions to change. When it comes to the real world, you can clearly see this research in action, particularly in the world of software. There has been a shift from offering pure financial incentive (e.g. working in finance) towards more intrinsic rewards (mission-driven, autonomy, ownership, etc that most top-end software companies prioritize)
“Top-end software companies” like say Google? Once again you look at the real world and find that companies find a reliable means of attracting and retaining staff is high pay.
What if you got paid your bonus not in cash but in paid time off? You could use that time for more self-actualisation. But (pretty much) zero companies offer it and no employees demonstrate a preference for it. In the real world money is what people want.
I don't think you have a very open mind in this discussion. People who aren't struggling to pay their bills prioritize things like autonomy, happiness and purpose above cash all the time.
And yet managers are highly paid and incentivised with large bonuses. How do you explain that paradox if pay is not an incentive? Managers can reward themselves and their peers with literally anything and they always choose more money. How do you explain it?
Theory and Wikipedia are fine but look at what actually happens in the real world. I read the original research in HBR when it was first published by the way. I didn’t believe it then either.