It's less likely that there's a team of people who are abnormally sensitive to criticism than one person who is uncommonly abrasive. In this case likely the jer

It's less likely that there's a team of people who are abnormally sensitive to criticism than one person who is uncommonly abrasive. In this case likely the jerk's output was not worth his externalities. In general I think the externalities of having "No Jerks" tend to put a cap on an organizations success. While they can be tough to deal with they challenge the status quo. This is key if you are to avoid local maxima. In abstract a company is a hill climbing algorithm in the space of success; without noise in the system you are very likely to get stuck in a local maximum. Too much noise and you might never climb. It's not necessary to be a jerk to succeed, and it's not necessary to be a jerk to fight the status quo. I do however feel a strong correlation between these traits and being a jerk. It's all well and good to search for the right people to perfect the mix but you'll always have to settle eventually, don't be afraid to settle on someone who's a little hard to get along with if they add something else key to the mix. Simple rules are useful because they're easy to follow; but all rules have externalities. If you're following "No Jerks" to the letter I'm not sure they're are worth it.