The "google doesn't offer a career path" point didn't necessarily sound as bad as they were probably assuming: given the choice between moving in to management if you're good at coding, or being paid more to do what you presumably enjoy, I know a lot of people who would prefer the latter.
Not a cut-and-dried issue I know, but I suspect it betrays a certain set of assumptions if not a mentality.
I understood "google doesn't offer a career path" to mean that there's no structure in place to help you advance to more valuable positions, not necessarily from coder to management. "Developer to Technical Architect" is one example given.
The problem with the traditional corporate structure isn't that advancement is bad, it's that there's often a mistaken assumption that the only thing more valuable than an individual contributor is a manager of individual contributors.
In the end I think this one is a wash. It's hard to see how you could do it both ways, and there are advantages to each. Google's ad hoc style seems to allow freedom to grow in whatever direction you want, and Google will decide later on if it's worth a promotion (to SDE II etc). The author seems to envision a system where the company has specific needs, and will support an employee with training and mentoring until he fits those needs.
I think "no career path" means that how exactly you become a manager is not formally defined. I haven't seen a good formal requirements for managers yet.
