Here's an interesting one for those of you working for a consulting/product/professional services organisation. How many times have you heard the following?
The customer won't pay your architect rate just for you to sit and code all day.
Personally, I've heard this quite a bit. First of all, yes, there's a fair amount of truth and reality here; why should a customer pay architect rates for somebody to sit and code all day? Unless the architect in question has very l33t coding skills, the customer probably shouldn't.
When you hire a software architect, although you're getting somebody that might be a good developer (if they believe in coding the architecture), you're really buying into somebody that can define and deliver an architecture for you. I'm definitely behind the stance that you don't have to give up coding as an architect, but you mustn't forget about your primarily responsibilities either.
If you find yourself spending 100% of your time coding, you've probably forgotten about the other stuff (e.g. architectural conformance, non-functional requirements assurance, quality assurance, etc) and your customer isn't getting what they paid for. You can certainly get your hands dirty as a software architect, but you can't delegate *all* of your architecture responsibilities. If you find yourself in this position, take a step back and look at the bigger picture once in a while.