Comments on: The 10 Day Boycott: A S.M.A.R.T. response to Whole Foods’ CEO Mackey http://AuthenticOrganizations.com/harquail/2009/08/27/the-10-day-boycott-a-s-m-a-r-t-response-to-whole-foods-ceo-mackey/ aligning identity, action and purpose Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:08:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Willa Geertsema http://AuthenticOrganizations.com/harquail/2009/08/27/the-10-day-boycott-a-s-m-a-r-t-response-to-whole-foods-ceo-mackey/#comment-1564 Willa Geertsema Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:01:52 +0000 http://AuthenticOrganizations.com/?p=2120#comment-1564 Hello cv, thanks for your gracious response to my strong opinion! Yes I agree, discussion and education are the way forward, and it would be interesting to think of collective ways to show anger that don't mess up the actual business. Because expressing anger on a material level takes one step forward and three steps back and is not in the interest of all. And if Wholefoods would be a greedy arms-trader, it would obviously be a different matter - but in fact it's one of the coolest and most idealistic businesses in the world, warts and all. I like what John Mackey does with Wholefoods, and he also seems to me someone who has moved beyond the level of only responding to material threats, and sensitive to discussion and his customers' genuine opinions - not just because of profit but because of the idealism of a better world. So opening up discussion, perhaps including nagging or anger if that is appropriate, should be fruitful. That in itself would be a major change wouldn't it - disputes being discussed publicly with respect, interest and a sense of the new solutions that are needed - not bargaining about how each party thinks they're already right. Now that would be truly inspiring, and change the rules of the game! .-= Willa Geertsema´s last blog ..<a href="http://theageoftransformation.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/direction-alignment-commitment-leadership-revisited/" rel="nofollow">Direction, Alignment, Commitment: Leadership Revisited</a> =-. Hello cv, thanks for your gracious response to my strong opinion! Yes I agree, discussion and education are the way forward, and it would be interesting to think of collective ways to show anger that don’t mess up the actual business. Because expressing anger on a material level takes one step forward and three steps back and is not in the interest of all. And if Wholefoods would be a greedy arms-trader, it would obviously be a different matter – but in fact it’s one of the coolest and most idealistic businesses in the world, warts and all.

I like what John Mackey does with Wholefoods, and he also seems to me someone who has moved beyond the level of only responding to material threats, and sensitive to discussion and his customers’ genuine opinions – not just because of profit but because of the idealism of a better world. So opening up discussion, perhaps including nagging or anger if that is appropriate, should be fruitful.

That in itself would be a major change wouldn’t it – disputes being discussed publicly with respect, interest and a sense of the new solutions that are needed – not bargaining about how each party thinks they’re already right. Now that would be truly inspiring, and change the rules of the game!
.-= Willa Geertsema´s last blog ..Direction, Alignment, Commitment: Leadership Revisited =-.

]]> By: Joseph Logan http://AuthenticOrganizations.com/harquail/2009/08/27/the-10-day-boycott-a-s-m-a-r-t-response-to-whole-foods-ceo-mackey/#comment-1523 Joseph Logan Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:10:09 +0000 http://AuthenticOrganizations.com/?p=2120#comment-1523 Seems to my naive thinking that a boycott punishes employees and customers of Whole Foods far more than it does Mackey. To the extent the company is hurt, the levers for correcting are in staffing levels and product pricing, which results in job loss and even higher prices on high-quality food that has no easy alternative in many markets. Mackey probably thought some of this through prior to publishing. That aside, though, I'm not sure disagreeing with a leader's opinion is sufficient reason to punish a company. Wouldn't boycotts mean more if they punished practice rather than opinion? .-= Joseph Logan´s last blog ..<a href="http://publicorgtheory.org/2009/08/30/white-house-risks-classic-mistakes-in-afpak-kpis/" rel="nofollow">White House risks classic mistakes in AfPak KPIs</a> =-. Seems to my naive thinking that a boycott punishes employees and customers of Whole Foods far more than it does Mackey. To the extent the company is hurt, the levers for correcting are in staffing levels and product pricing, which results in job loss and even higher prices on high-quality food that has no easy alternative in many markets. Mackey probably thought some of this through prior to publishing.

That aside, though, I’m not sure disagreeing with a leader’s opinion is sufficient reason to punish a company. Wouldn’t boycotts mean more if they punished practice rather than opinion?
.-= Joseph Logan´s last blog ..White House risks classic mistakes in AfPak KPIs =-.

]]> By: cv http://AuthenticOrganizations.com/harquail/2009/08/27/the-10-day-boycott-a-s-m-a-r-t-response-to-whole-foods-ceo-mackey/#comment-1515 cv Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:36:24 +0000 http://AuthenticOrganizations.com/?p=2120#comment-1515 HI Willa- I agree with you that the better option would be what I call the win-win-win conversation, where the two parties get together to discuss and agree on a solution that serves each of them and their shared community. (Just what I suggested as a solution to the Walmart v Girl Scout conflict.) Maybe boycotts do come from a place about being 'right' (or rather, being angry and wanting to find a way to show that en masse ... and that would suggest that a 'better boycott' is one that also serves to create a conversation as well as some education too. I recall that this kind of activist education was an important component of the civil rights and feminist movements of the '60s and '70s and would be appropriate now too. thanks for your comment and also for letting me know about your own blog! cv HI Willa-
I agree with you that the better option would be what I call the win-win-win conversation, where the two parties get together to discuss and agree on a solution that serves each of them and their shared community. (Just what I suggested as a solution to the Walmart v Girl Scout conflict.)

Maybe boycotts do come from a place about being ‘right’ (or rather, being angry and wanting to find a way to show that en masse … and that would suggest that a ‘better boycott’ is one that also serves to create a conversation as well as some education too. I recall that this kind of activist education was an important component of the civil rights and feminist movements of the ’60s and ’70s and would be appropriate now too.

thanks for your comment and also for letting me know about your own blog! cv

]]> By: Willa Geertsema http://AuthenticOrganizations.com/harquail/2009/08/27/the-10-day-boycott-a-s-m-a-r-t-response-to-whole-foods-ceo-mackey/#comment-1512 Willa Geertsema Sat, 29 Aug 2009 09:16:49 +0000 http://AuthenticOrganizations.com/?p=2120#comment-1512 Well actually I think the whole idea of a boycott to Wholefoods because you don't agree with Mackey is ludicrous. Turning it into a SMART idea only makes it worse as you give it more legitimacy. I understand that you don't really agree with the boycott to start with - then why give it more legitimacy? You end up hurting the people we want Mackey to take care of: the growers in distant countries who really need their fair trade, his employees, the local growers who depend on Wholefoods. I am a customer of them, not just of Mackey. To me the idea of the boycott seems like an 'old' sort of knee-jerk reaction that comes from a level of awareness that cares more about being right than about making things work. From there, all we end up doing is swinging like a pendulum between our reactions. I fully respect if you don't agree with Mackey, but why not take him on directly? Invite him for public discussion, write about him, hassle him, get him on tv, go to Oprah. Then he can explain himself and you create a useful discussion. Hurting Wholefoods only hurts countless people who can't be held responsible for the opinions of John Mackey - in the middle of a crushing recession that hurts everyone badly enough anyway. .-= Willa Geertsema´s last blog ..<a href="http://theageoftransformation.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/direction-alignment-commitment-leadership-revisited/" rel="nofollow">Direction, Alignment, Commitment: Leadership Revisited</a> =-. Well actually I think the whole idea of a boycott to Wholefoods because you don’t agree with Mackey is ludicrous. Turning it into a SMART idea only makes it worse as you give it more legitimacy. I understand that you don’t really agree with the boycott to start with – then why give it more legitimacy? You end up hurting the people we want Mackey to take care of: the growers in distant countries who really need their fair trade, his employees, the local growers who depend on Wholefoods. I am a customer of them, not just of Mackey.

To me the idea of the boycott seems like an ‘old’ sort of knee-jerk reaction that comes from a level of awareness that cares more about being right than about making things work. From there, all we end up doing is swinging like a pendulum between our reactions. I fully respect if you don’t agree with Mackey, but why not take him on directly? Invite him for public discussion, write about him, hassle him, get him on tv, go to Oprah. Then he can explain himself and you create a useful discussion.

Hurting Wholefoods only hurts countless people who can’t be held responsible for the opinions of John Mackey – in the middle of a crushing recession that hurts everyone badly enough anyway.
.-= Willa Geertsema´s last blog ..Direction, Alignment, Commitment: Leadership Revisited =-.

]]> By: cv http://AuthenticOrganizations.com/harquail/2009/08/27/the-10-day-boycott-a-s-m-a-r-t-response-to-whole-foods-ceo-mackey/#comment-1505 cv Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:54:11 +0000 http://AuthenticOrganizations.com/?p=2120#comment-1505 Hi Brayden- I'm going to add those two points...thanks for the expert action advice! Hi Brayden-

I’m going to add those two points…thanks for the expert action advice!

]]> By: brayden http://AuthenticOrganizations.com/harquail/2009/08/27/the-10-day-boycott-a-s-m-a-r-t-response-to-whole-foods-ceo-mackey/#comment-1504 brayden Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:17:44 +0000 http://AuthenticOrganizations.com/?p=2120#comment-1504 The goal of the boycott must also be measurable and specific. A lot of boycotts fail simply because it wasn't clear what the purpose of the action was. Companies can't respond if they don't know what the boycotters think they should change. Also, boycott organizers would benefit from making clear alternatives available to the participants. If you want to boycott Acme Pizza, make sure that participants know where else they can buy their pizza (especially a pizza of roughly the same quality and price). Without alternatives the likelihood of participants actually following through with it are much smaller. .-= brayden´s last blog ..<a href="http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/politics-of-the-corporation-syllabus/" rel="nofollow">politics of the corporation syllabus</a> =-. The goal of the boycott must also be measurable and specific. A lot of boycotts fail simply because it wasn’t clear what the purpose of the action was. Companies can’t respond if they don’t know what the boycotters think they should change.

Also, boycott organizers would benefit from making clear alternatives available to the participants. If you want to boycott Acme Pizza, make sure that participants know where else they can buy their pizza (especially a pizza of roughly the same quality and price). Without alternatives the likelihood of participants actually following through with it are much smaller.
.-= brayden´s last blog ..politics of the corporation syllabus =-.

]]>