This post is atrociously bad. It seems like the author(s) are trying to come up with original ideas, but Steve Blank and Clayton Christensen have written much better works on this subject.
The authors will come by and read this and dismiss it out of hand when you have a chance to help them get better at what they do (they recognize that failing to do something, in this case present their case clearly, can teach new skills)
So let's be a bit more proactive in the feedback okay?
The post bounces between background/foundation material and new material too rapidly. It can be over expository in background which may prevent the reader from connecting what background material/situation is being addressed by the new material. It fails to present a cogent summary of its thesis statement in the first paragraph, that comes in paragraph 3. Paragraphs 1 & 2 are nominally a problem statement in what reads as an obtuse jargon.
Now some of that is that the entire article feels like it is written for someone who has read all of their other articles and so there are many unexplained phrases which clearly have specific meanings. Statements like "I promise you, in its entirety, the following is something you’ve never heard before, and the ramifications of ignoring the advice herein most assuredly leads to unhappy software engineers." exhibit a certain hubris that can be off putting to engineers and that isn't a great place to start.
I've read Christensen's work, along with other authors and came to the same conclusions that this author writes about, but I've never taken the time to put it into words like this.