Given how lousy interviewing is as a method for discerning quality employees, I'm not sure that's a bad result.
And if you report or have to answer to anyone, they're not likely to be impressed that you hired that many duds/people who just didn't work out.
Exactly, hiring the right people is good for the employees (they have steady jobs in an environment where not all the faces are new all the time) and for the company because of the high cost associated with new hires.
The cost of bringing a new employee up to speed is usually taken as anwywhere from 6 to 12 months of their gross pay, assuming they're engineering positions (and that's what we're talking about).
For other work the cost can be lower or higher depending on how much time and effort needs to be invested by the company to get a new hire up to speed on the company procedures, code base (in case of software), work out team issues and any in-house training programs.
I think it's important to note that the author is writing from the viewpoint of a serial entrepreneur, which means the context is small startup environments.
Presumably he still might answer to a board, but those may all be co-founders. Regardless, I don't think they would need to be impressed by his management style so much as his end results.
So if you have "normal" investors, unless the board that includes them is really hands off they'll notice and I can't imagine it will help his credibility. If it's that hands off you're in trouble in that they aren't likely to be very committed to the venture.
It also seems a bit like speculation, unless you're a VC or angel who has seen this.