This is terrible, and would also make me want to quit. Because if you start as part of the decision making process, and over time stop being invited to those meetings, that means you are no longer trusted or important enough to have any say in those decisions. That would be insulting, to say the least.
Even though my title, salary, and perks were still the same, it was a de-facto demotion. Important parts of my compensation (involvement, agency, sense of ownership, diversity in work effort) were just inadvertently phased out as the company I helped grow was big enough to support product managers who could do just the most rewarding parts of my job but not actually code or anything.
I think (hope) there are things that one can do to guard against this from happening, and just being aware of this phenomenon is valuable.
That's a neat observation, and a pattern I've seen before. As the company (or team, within a larger company) grows, it's possible to lose some of the things you most value about your job -- without even realising it.
The company and management have the best intentions at heart for you, the team and the product -- but is this an inevitable side-effect of growth?
Also, the reason I became a product manager in the first place was because I found the specific stuff you mention invigorating, and coding became a distraction from it; I wouldn't diss all product managers with the same brush, it's just an unfortunate trap that if you're a good engineer then people probably don't think you want to be more product-focused, and don't want to lose your coding contributions.
1. http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-princ...
For me, it was mostly a lack of mindfulness, both from me and from my manager, about what was going on as the dynamics changed. I'm sure that if I had said "hey, it's important that you don't take this kind of work away from me" before it was too late, it would have worked out much better.
Do you know what the "MacLeod Model" is? A cartoon on the back of a business card, posted to the web without comment nine years ago: http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/
Michael O'Church might have some interesting things to say, but when he extrapolates pages of meaning from a cartoon that's just trying to be humorous, it says more about Michael O'Church than anything else.
I would classify Michael's work as an introduction to applied evolutionary psychology, using corporations as a case study. If you'd like the reasons behind why his work is valid, I'd recommend starting with Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene followed by The Extended Phenotype. The sections on game theory are particularly insightful, as they describe how competing strategies reach equilibrium in a given environment. You will find the strategies described are quite similar to Michael's classifications, thus shedding much light on corporate environments.
I don't think we should disregard the ideas in this napkin comic just because it's a napkin comic. We should disregard it if it has no grasp on reality. But when one reads books like The Corporation and also experiences life in the corporate world, some of us can't help but nod our heads depressingly. It's why we quit.
See also http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/deceptive-writing-styl...
Haven't seen much from him lately.
That's the worst. Asshole idea people who can't code their bullshit design or implementation.