First, and I really want to point this out. The author's sentance you are quoting doesn't have fully correct english and due to that is missing meaning. You're reading into it what you want.
Second, applying the assumption they are obfusicating code to maintain control or ensure job security paints a lot of people with a very, very wide brush. If you asked why or spent time understanding why, then you'd get a lot closer to the truth of whatever the situation happens to be.
Third, Arthur Schopenhauer is attributed with the statement "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." High performers tend to hit targets nobody else can see and that tends to be a very disorienting experience for all involved because systems end up behaiving in unexpected ways. Some people call it code obfusication, some people call it forcing people who are looking to break things to understand what they are doing before they do it; both are forms of organizational dysfunction which is pandemic in the industry.
Subtly demonizing these people as "inhuman", or as you are doing right now, painting them with a wide brush, illustrates one of the serious problems that high IQ and high performance staff face. Namely, they get scapegoated and harassed by groups of people.
At one org I found a bug causing 8 figures a year in inventory shrink caused by 2 lines of SQL Code that had been there for 10+ years; a contractor had come in, implimented a fix, and nobody had ever questioned it. Millions of dollars of inventory were being stolen by staff. Now imagine how disorienting that is to the entire end to end org. Believe you me, the c-suite wanted me gone after that and not because I wasn't doing a great job, but because I was fixing organizational issues that made them look bad and they wanted that stopped. They hired a high performer, encouraged it, and then when it got too bad for them, they got rid of them.
It is fully possible that some of these situations exist where there's a toxic, narcissistic fascade being sold to maximize profit. It happens. But I doubt that is the norm.
Is this an issue of organizational incentives? It's an issue with organizational structure, not recognizing people for who they are, and not aligining staff's interests because in this world we have this f'd up idea that we're just here to make money for shareholders or be the ATM machine for ownership. If running a company as pageantry makes them money, then they do not care.
This is why many high performers often create a niche money-making product that doesn't take up a lot of their time to get cash out of, then move on to working on other things that make them happy.
Why waste the effort if people don't care?