There is plenty of legitimate criticism about Jack and his management style. In fact, the book referenced at the end of the article is a well rounded detailed account of how his management style really did end up long term gutting GE and lead to their decline, but its not wholly ignorant of the facts like this.
That said, there were outside commentators who’d raised questions about GE’s liquidity in the 2000s (notably Bill Gross) which did get Immelt and co. to term out some of GE’s debt. Maybe Jack would have been foresighted enough to do more. But that would have hit earnings (you’d pay a higher interest rate on longer term debt), so it would have been a tough sell, I think.
in my experience with six sigma (back at Sun Microsystems) and its various incarnations later it is among the worst things which can happen (though the company has to already be in significant rot to let such parasite in), last nail into the coffin so to say, it is the moment when totally clueless, this time by-design, management - all those six sigma certified belts - overtake the product development and kill whatever last reason and sense that was still there. And that is what article describes happened with GE and Boeing when they got overtaken by such a management. Anyway, the point of the article seems to be not the details of how Jack and his spawn ruined those companies, the point is the climate change related effects of that.
You’ve just gravely offended all those top consultancies hired by the companies I worked at. Basically you repeating the favorite argument of management consultants - if Scrum isn’t working for you then you’re doing it wrong.