I understand where you're coming from, but I think you have interpreted the author in a very different way to me. You say:
I actually haven't noticed that "rock star quality" makes people anything but jerks to work with
Nowhere does the author suggest that A Players are jerks to work with. In fact, had he had this assumption, he surely wouldn't have called them 'A Players'. It appears to me that you have correlated something that he said 'being very good at what you do' with another trait 'being a jerk to work with'. In my experience, this is not a strong correlation. Maybe in your experience it is, hence your interpretation. But the crux here is that your issue with his points hinges on your addition: A Player = jerk to work with.
As to serious loathing for people who divide the world into "C players", "B players" and "A players" I really do see where you're coming from - it does sound a little distastefully, doesn't it? Anything that apparently force-ranks human kind risks sounding distasteful I feel. But this isn't about classifying the person themselves (in their entire life), it's about classifying the person's ability to job the job that they are currently pursuing. This is hugely important. Someone might be a B Player in the world of software engineering, but an A Player on the soccer pitch.
If you glance at the page that Auren Hoffman links to, you'll see that he defines his "A players" in the classic "Rock Star" fashion - they won't work with anyone but other "A-Players", they'll leave if you hire other types, etc. You can follow the link I provide for this.
Sure, people perform differently in different job and people who perform well should be hired. Even then, the "only A-players" thing is dubious - even in a super bowl team, some people are supporting players and good "stars" respect their support and* a variety of talents is useful even in software creation.
It's pretty obvious that venture capitalist Hoffman using his "Rock stars" rhetoric to pump up Rapleaf as "another Google". "Truly outstanding people" is not a particularly well articulated criteria for hiring but it sure appeals to the plebs and the marketers. It's unfortunate, because your management philosophy shouldn't be a "look at how great I am" tool. If you really need to get people to look at you, there are other ways to do it.
I actually haven't noticed that "rock star quality" makes people anything but jerks to work with
Nowhere does the author suggest that A Players are jerks to work with. In fact, had he had this assumption, he surely wouldn't have called them 'A Players'. It appears to me that you have correlated something that he said 'being very good at what you do' with another trait 'being a jerk to work with'. In my experience, this is not a strong correlation. Maybe in your experience it is, hence your interpretation. But the crux here is that your issue with his points hinges on your addition: A Player = jerk to work with.
As to serious loathing for people who divide the world into "C players", "B players" and "A players" I really do see where you're coming from - it does sound a little distastefully, doesn't it? Anything that apparently force-ranks human kind risks sounding distasteful I feel. But this isn't about classifying the person themselves (in their entire life), it's about classifying the person's ability to job the job that they are currently pursuing. This is hugely important. Someone might be a B Player in the world of software engineering, but an A Player on the soccer pitch.