The author assumes that since a set of things (the software industry) is rapidly growing, each member of that set (companies in the industry) must also be rapidly growing. This overlooks the possibility that some companies might not be growing, despite overall industry growth.

The author doesn’t infer that Logichut is innovative on the basis of having creative employees or management open to new ideas. The author infers that Logichut is innovative on the basis of an assumption that Logichut is rapidly growing, which we know requires innovation.

By using “if so,” author expressly conditions the conclusion on the truth of the claim that Logichut has no creative employees. This acknowledges that the claim might not be true, so it’s wrong to say the author concludes that what people say/believe about Logichut must be true.

The author does not infer that Logichut is growing rapidly on the basis of the necessary condition for growing rapidly (innovation). Rather, the author assumes that Logichut is growing rapidly on the basis of the industry as a whole growing rapidly.

It may be possible for a company to have both. The author’s position is merely that if Logichut does not have creative employees, then it must have management open to new ideas. This doesn’t assume that Logichut can’t have both.