"No" here is used in the sense of "no pets", "no solicitors", "no outside food or drink beyond this point"
This isn't how logic works... It's a statement, saying "No Brilliant Jerks Welcome Here". It does not negate their existence, only their company.
??¹
> A simple chain of logic, extrapolating from that headline, would lead to "if they truly were all around brilliant, they wouldn't act that way.
???²
¹ Valuing non-jerkiness more isn’t “negating brilliance”. Brilliant non-jerks are available.
² Er, no.
Also, with regards to this comment: "Valuing non-jerkiness more isn’t “negating brilliance”. Brilliant non-jerks are available."
Sure, there's no shortage of brilliant non-jerks, but sometimes the most brilliant person for a given company in a given context (by an order of magnitude) is a jerk. You have to apply first principles, systems thinking to determine whether they're right for the company or not, and whether mitigating their jerky behavior is bad for the company or not. I don't totally disagree with the article. Sometimes the measures they recommend are well-advised, and sometimes they would be misguided. I'm cautioning about the latter because it's such a common human instinct to try to cast out or sheer the black sheep. On the margins, group harmony is overrated.
Do we really want more companies like Apple? They’re the Monsanto of tech IMO.
Reality is complicated. You don't get at the truth by finding the absolutist statement that is correct most of the time. You have to conduct a more holistic analysis than that. What causes this person to be a jerk? Has the very behavior that caused them to be a jerk also led to the founding of this company? Would they lose their passion if we tried to cage them like a pet bird? If so, how critical is their passion to this company? What if they're absolutely, 100% right about something and they're being a "jerk" because they are trying to communicate precisely how much they think they're right and how wrong everyone else is? How right have they been in the past?
On top of asking the right questions, you need to do a first principles analysis. What drives this company to be profitable in a competitive context? Why do we want to reduce tension in this company? Is it because that tension is bad for profit? Are you sure?
[1]: I removed the following from the top of my comment: "There are "No" brilliant jerks? Absolutely none? What evidence is that based on?" because a below commenter is right that it doesn't really fit the primary meaning of the headline. My core point remains pretty much the same though.