That's not what he said.
Slightly re-phrasing, he said: "95% business people are bad (at helping companies achieve their goals) and 5% are good. The 95% succeed at keeping a job by being psychopaths".
I wouldn't fixate on the word "psychopath". He's not talking about serial killers, just general sleaziness and advancing careers not by being good at their jobs but, say, playing office politics well.
For a concrete example, let's consider that Zoox tweet about organizing Hispanic something event.
It took at least a few people to do it. Someone had to conceive the idea, there had to be a meeting or two discussing it, some exec had to approve it, someone had to execute it and Zoox paid for it, directly for the event and indirectly for the salaries of the people involved.
How much all this activity contributed to Zoox solving self-driving problem? Zero. Nada.
Did it help justify the continuing employment of the people doing it? Yes. Maybe they even got a promotion for going "above and beyond" their duties.
There's an argument that those people are more like parasites, draining the host company of funds, time and attention, advancing their own careers at the expense of Zoox.
For context: this happened 3 years ago.
Zoox still hasn't made a single dollar selling a product. They still hasn't solved self driving.
They got acqui-hired by Amazon for less money that they raised which means that all employees that likely worked there for less money and stock options ended up working there for just less money.