Whole Foods Boss John Mackey's New Book
I saw a bunch of yellow and green books in the Whole Foods Store. They looked like Brazilian soccer uniforms. Turned out the books were copies of Whole Foods founder John Mackey's 'Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business '.
So this evening on the internet, I took a look at the reviews and the comments on the review at Amazon.com, re 'Conscious Capitalism' and other books by Mackey or his co-author Sisodia (of Bentley College in Waltham MA). Now I present my initial reactions to this study, admitting I have still not read any of the books themselves at this time.
Mackey's idea in my words:
Looking behond short-term shareholder interests, is the road to maximizing return to shareholders. Looking beyond means, catering to the interests of consumers, employees, the environment, vendors also. There is data showing good guys outperform bad guys. Looking beyond, means unifying the disparate groups concerned, by way of a goal they can all be enthused about. Whole Foods was founded with the primary goal being ethical. The secondary profit making goal was nevertheless important because it was felt that the primary ethical goal could not be achieved if the secondary profit-making goal was not achieved.
Analysis
Investors who hold a given stock for only a short period of time, conflict with the Mackey approach.
Those who consider a corporation's stock value to reflected in its short-term profits conflict with the Mackey approach.
The concept that 'fiduciary duty' enjoins executives to obsess over short-term profits, conflicts with the Mackey approach.
It is possible, that the primary cause of the good guy company successes reflected in the data presented, is something other than being a good guy; and it is possible that the primary cause of the bad guy failures, could be something other than being a bad guy.
It is conceivable that a company could render itself popular with all 'stakeholders' (shareholders, workers, customers, distributors, the environment and the community), and still be a negative force in the world.
I can see myself writing a hilarious spoof, about a great entrepeneur, who rendered himself popular with shareholders, workers, customers, distributors, environmentalists, and the community, while he ruined the world. Or maybe it could be about some wizard who was not just popular with all such, but actually financially good for all such, who ruined the world.
It is conceivable, that a good guy company's continued existence, is not preferable compared to the good-guy company's termination.
It is conceivable, that a good-guy company performing certain functions, is not preferable to government or a non-profit performing those functions instead.
It is conceivable, that a bad-guy company could, despite its low stock earnings performance, perform a key role in enriching and empowering a hyper-selfish special interest that remotely and secretly controls the low-performing company. Hence it is dangerous to assume that low-performing bad-guy corporations are weak and not dangerous, simply because good-guys are high-performance.
Conclusion
Generally I welcome the idea that good guys can do well. If a strong case can be made that good guys can do well, then executives will be less likely to fear being good, due to a concern re being accused of neglecting 'fiduciary duty'. Seems to me the business community tends to sometimes simply assume that 'fiduciary duty' consists of being a bad guy. Which reminds me of the proverb: 'These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. ' (Proverbs 6:16-19 King James Version (KJV)). It is wrong to unrealistically imagine, that 'fiduciary duty' consists of being a bad guy.
Mackey and Sisodia's books and CDs (to me as of now), seem weak in a certain respect: explaining to executives etc., who attempt to follow Mackey and be a good guy, how to defend themselves legally against accusations that they are neglecting their 'fiduciary duty'.
Note:
I wrote the 687 word essay above, in about 1.5 hours from approx 2-330 AM Jan 10. This was preceded by a couple of hours of reading the reviews at amazon.com.
So this evening on the internet, I took a look at the reviews and the comments on the review at Amazon.com, re 'Conscious Capitalism' and other books by Mackey or his co-author Sisodia (of Bentley College in Waltham MA). Now I present my initial reactions to this study, admitting I have still not read any of the books themselves at this time.
Mackey's idea in my words:
Looking behond short-term shareholder interests, is the road to maximizing return to shareholders. Looking beyond means, catering to the interests of consumers, employees, the environment, vendors also. There is data showing good guys outperform bad guys. Looking beyond, means unifying the disparate groups concerned, by way of a goal they can all be enthused about. Whole Foods was founded with the primary goal being ethical. The secondary profit making goal was nevertheless important because it was felt that the primary ethical goal could not be achieved if the secondary profit-making goal was not achieved.
Analysis
Investors who hold a given stock for only a short period of time, conflict with the Mackey approach.
Those who consider a corporation's stock value to reflected in its short-term profits conflict with the Mackey approach.
The concept that 'fiduciary duty' enjoins executives to obsess over short-term profits, conflicts with the Mackey approach.
It is possible, that the primary cause of the good guy company successes reflected in the data presented, is something other than being a good guy; and it is possible that the primary cause of the bad guy failures, could be something other than being a bad guy.
It is conceivable that a company could render itself popular with all 'stakeholders' (shareholders, workers, customers, distributors, the environment and the community), and still be a negative force in the world.
I can see myself writing a hilarious spoof, about a great entrepeneur, who rendered himself popular with shareholders, workers, customers, distributors, environmentalists, and the community, while he ruined the world. Or maybe it could be about some wizard who was not just popular with all such, but actually financially good for all such, who ruined the world.
It is conceivable, that a good guy company's continued existence, is not preferable compared to the good-guy company's termination.
It is conceivable, that a good-guy company performing certain functions, is not preferable to government or a non-profit performing those functions instead.
It is conceivable, that a bad-guy company could, despite its low stock earnings performance, perform a key role in enriching and empowering a hyper-selfish special interest that remotely and secretly controls the low-performing company. Hence it is dangerous to assume that low-performing bad-guy corporations are weak and not dangerous, simply because good-guys are high-performance.
Conclusion
Generally I welcome the idea that good guys can do well. If a strong case can be made that good guys can do well, then executives will be less likely to fear being good, due to a concern re being accused of neglecting 'fiduciary duty'. Seems to me the business community tends to sometimes simply assume that 'fiduciary duty' consists of being a bad guy. Which reminds me of the proverb: 'These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. ' (Proverbs 6:16-19 King James Version (KJV)). It is wrong to unrealistically imagine, that 'fiduciary duty' consists of being a bad guy.
Mackey and Sisodia's books and CDs (to me as of now), seem weak in a certain respect: explaining to executives etc., who attempt to follow Mackey and be a good guy, how to defend themselves legally against accusations that they are neglecting their 'fiduciary duty'.
Note:
I wrote the 687 word essay above, in about 1.5 hours from approx 2-330 AM Jan 10. This was preceded by a couple of hours of reading the reviews at amazon.com.
posted by David Virgil at 3:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home