Edited [1]: Ironically, one sign of brilliance is the ability to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in your head. I think many people who interacted with Steve Jobs would classify him as a jerk. However, if Apple was more inclined towards mitigating his jerky behavior, it might not be where it is today.
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.
If you don't want brilliant jerks, you are inherently negating their brilliance. 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. They would be more brilliant if we replaced their non-brilliant side with our brilliant behavioral prescriptions."
I'm not defending being a jerk. Personally, I try to be kind in all my interpersonal interactions. However, some people are just a package deal. Call it what you want, high IQ and low EQ or whatever, but you can't just accept one part of them and try to get rid of the rest.
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.
It doesn't matter if they're the best by an order of magnitude if their jerkiness demotivates 10 other people. And I doubt that 'order of magnitude' statement.
A lot of people consider Elon Musk to be a jerk, and it would be a huge shame if he’s removed from his company. In most contexts what you said is 100% correct.
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.