I don’t think it’s advocating including “dumb and unskilled” people in your team, but rather speaking to the external dynamics that recognized leaders in a given field tend to carry with them—ie, an eagerness to showcase their prior successes while claiming to have been largely/solely responsible for them, while suppressing the roles played by the contributions of others.

There exists a cohort of otherwise very capable individuals (my intuition would be that it is comprised of a much larger and varied population that would be difficult to identify and select for) who are maybe not so driven by glory or personal ambition, or who tend to share credit for their accomplishments with the people and circumstances that meaningfully shaped the outcome, rather than taking victory laps and draw the attention to themselves.

There are certainly distinct traits of “leaders” that can be critically valuable to a team, whether it’s charisma and the ability to sell an idea, or organizational skills that facilitate the efficient application of resources. The point this article seems to be making is that an ideal team will be comprised of a relative few “leaders” with most of the members being more in line with the aforementioned cohort.

It’s essentially just an academic exploration of the old “too many cooks in the kitchen” idiom.