Comments on: The Two-Faced CEO: Citizen or Whole Foods Shareholder?

By: Grant McCracken

Grant McCracken — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:36:47 +0000

CV agree entirely. especially when the CEO has access to big public forums only because he or she is a CEO. They use the brand to address the public and then diminish it. doubly unjust. Thanks. .-= Grant McCracken´s last blog ..Putting the gift back in the gift economy (with the fractional and the frictionless) =-.

By: James Thompson

James Thompson — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:36:28 +0000

I want to ask a question since in my research I’m failing to see that contradiction supposedly present. Mackey asserted that the government’s role in the health care arena is essentially to promote, not provide affordable health care. He asserted that health care is not an individual right that the Federal government has authority to intervene with relation to. How doe either of these two points conflict with Whole Foods mission or core values as a company? I’ve read through their published material online and find no mention of health care as a political ideal. They want to promote health through a wholesome diet but there’s no mention of promoting government provision of health care.

This whole mess seems to be more about the perceived values and political leanings of a corporation, rather than explicitly states values or political persuasions. Please tell me what I’m missing.

As a point of interest, I’m a non-partisan Constitutional conservative who agrees with Mackey’s overall assessment. I also am a Whole Foods patron who doesn’t give a rip what the CEO thinks, so long as he continues leading the company to provide products that I want to buy.

By: Michael Roberto

Michael Roberto — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:30:10 +0000

I don’t agree that Mackey’s comments “contradict the values” of the organization. Mackey has done a wonderful job of creating a great place to work that values its employees and provides good benefits. His proposals articulated in the Wall Street Journal do not contradict the values he has espoused at Whole Foods; they simply offer a different METHOD for achieving the goals of better, cheaper, more accessible healthcare. He doesn’t disagree with the ENDS for which the “progressives” strive; he disagrees with the MEANS. Too many of Mackey’s critics are confusing the ends and means. They are jumping to the conclusion that he doesn’t share their “good” intentions, which simply isn’t true. Having said that, Mackey should clearly have known that he would generate this type of reaction from the President’s supporters, of which there are many among his customer base.
.-= Michael Roberto´s last blog ..GM Board and Opel =-.

By: admin

admin — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:32:08 +0000

Hi Bernie-
Thanks so much for your comment… it really is crazy how democratic and “American” principles are getting misused in this supposed ‘debate’. I think the health care situation is an especially interesting arena for the TwoFaced CEO dilemma because of the ways that American big business is an unreliable citizen… the choices that may seem preferable from the perspective of one organization’s P&L don’t look quite as good when you take a community perspective. …
Glad to find “The Moment” too! cv

By: Bernie White

Bernie White — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:05:03 +0000

Right on CVH. Trust suffers with this sort of cognitive dissonance. On a national level, and from a long way away (New Zealand), there seems a dramatic cognitive dissonance between the principles and values that America was founded on (and many aspire to) and the behaviours I read about in my paper daily. The healthcare debate as but one example.
Enjoying your blog, keep up the great work.