I didn't get the impression that Phil was advocating hiring jerks; anyway, the people I think of as jerks are (i) the people who want to keep their cosy way of doing things even though it produces bad results and therfor avoid hiring anyone who is unwilling to bow down and unquestionally worship the status quo, (ii) the incompetents who think they will get good reviews as long as they never disagree with me, no matter how wrong I may have gotten something, (iii) people who can't be bothered to learn, (iv) people who think that authority without responsibility is a good for them while responsibility without authority is right for everyone else, (v) people who can't do the job but pretend they can and (vi) people who by their behaviour make the working environment into a miseable place for their colleagues and.or their customers or impair the efficiency of colleagues. So it seems to me that Phil was attacking people who fit the first (and possibly also people who fit the fourth) alternative of that definition of jerks, not because they wouldn't hire jerks but because they wouldn't hire competent people, but because they would rate someone who fits the second alternative in my berk definition higher than someone who was actually competent.