> it is understood that everyone has their eye open for the next big opportunity
This hasn't been my approach, nor has it been for many people I've worked with – or perhaps we're tripping over language?
Let's say that someone is super motivated by a high salary. They would be helping their manager (and, in most situations, themselves) if they were open about that. Up to and including conversations like "I hear that Company X is paying 20% more for a comparable role – here's some data to show I'm underpaid".
It's those kinds of conversations which would mean that your manager won't be surprised if in 6 months you leave for a better-paying role. Or, perhaps you get a nice pay rise. Or, if you can't have such conversations, see the red "you should leave anyway" box in the post!
But if you know that the current company cannot pay like the other company you are interviewing for, or that in this new company the future salary outlook is much better, why bother asking if they can pay you more?
In the work life, one needs to be strategic; it appears to me that most people on here who are commenting somewhat negatively about people giving 2-week notice and nothing else have never been laid off or fired or somewhat "mistreated" by a company.
The way to be an excellent employee is to always deliver work to the best of one's capabilities and give 2-week notice before leaving.
In one company I worked for, somebody gave a 2-week notice and was let go immediately. It is not unheard of, and most legacy companies could not care less about a possible PR problem.
Those legacy companies live in a galaxy that is far away from the one inhabited by start-ups and similar good PR-dependent companies, they are populated mostly by old dinosaurs that recruit heavily among the not-too-brilliant technical people.
> But if you know that the current company cannot pay like the other company you are interviewing for, or that in this new company the future salary outlook is much better, why bother asking if they can pay you more?
That's situation-dependent: there's often stuff a company can do if you're highly cash-motivated (promotions, other title changes, bonuses, …) to retain you.
On the other hand, often there's not! Especially in older / larger orgs or ones with unconventionally rigid payscales. Even in that situation, I'd generally stand by the recommendation: there's a chance they will find a way to accommodate your needs, and if not you have cemented a strong relationship with your manager and above that will benefit you way into the future.
A few other commenters have mentioned the benefits they have realised by leaving gracefully. IMO this expected upside outweighs the short-term risk, at least in the sorts of roles the post is (now) aimed at.
I especially agree on the approach regarding pay. Contrast that with "I have an offer from Company X that is 20% more, can you match it?" In the former case, you can be seen as expressing a sort of loyalty, in the latter case you live with a little extra workplace hostility even if your current employer agreed to match the offer. In that sense, when it's time to go it's best to go.
This hasn't been my approach, nor has it been for many people I've worked with – or perhaps we're tripping over language?
Let's say that someone is super motivated by a high salary. They would be helping their manager (and, in most situations, themselves) if they were open about that. Up to and including conversations like "I hear that Company X is paying 20% more for a comparable role – here's some data to show I'm underpaid".
It's those kinds of conversations which would mean that your manager won't be surprised if in 6 months you leave for a better-paying role. Or, perhaps you get a nice pay rise. Or, if you can't have such conversations, see the red "you should leave anyway" box in the post!