Big piece on John Mackey in this week’s New Yorker. (Coincidentally, Mackey also figured heavily in the last episode of Practically Ideal on conscious capitalism.)

Some parts made even me (as a professed Mackey fan) think. For example:

Mackey is an example of what you might call the auteur C.E.O. Like Steve Jobs’s, his personality is entwined in his company’s. He doesn’t bother with day-to-day operations; he’s not a technician or a face man. When he’s asked what it is he does, exactly, he describes a kind of philosopher-king, who brings big ideas to bear. Mackey, an outspoken critic of executive overcompensation, pays himself a dollar a year. No one at the company can have a salary more than nineteen times what the average team member makes. (On average, an S. & P. 500 C.E.O. makes three hundred and nineteen times what a production worker does.) Last year, the highest salary went to Walter Robb, the co-president and chief operating officer, who made just over four hundred thousand dollars (supplemented by a bonus and stock options). The average hourly wage was sixteen dollars and fifty cents.

I think the role comparison to Jobs is right on. For conscious capitalist proponents, Whole Foods is pretty much the shining example of what companies could be like. But is it less replicable than some of us might hope? Does conscious capitalism depend on this kind of unique, quirky personality of the CEO?

Also:

Whole Foods routinely ranks high on those lists of companies that are the best to work for. The health and retirement benefits are relatively generous. Mackey regards his blend of paternalism and sovereignty as a recipe for proper governance, an expression of both compassion and creativity. This view is not shared by unions, which have complained that Mackey prevents unionization among his employees, notably at a store in Madison, Wisconsin, where team members had voted to unionize. Unions have picketed store openings and, as activist investors in Whole Foods stock, have called for Mackey’s firing.

-snip!-

It sometimes sounds as if [Mackey] believed that, if every company had him at the helm, there would be no need for unions or health-care reform, and that therefore every company should have someone like him, and that therefore there should be no unions or health-care reform. In other words, because he runs a business a certain way, others will, can, and should, and so the safeguards that have evolved over the generations to protect against human venality—against, say, greedy, bullying bosses—are no longer necessary. The logic is as sound as the presumption is preposterous.

To me, the fact that employees and observers think it’s a great place to work pretty much answers the union’s concerns, at least in Whole Foods’ case. But it raises another important question. Assuming conscious capitalism can work well in other companies, what happens where it isn’t being implemented? How do we set up the regulatory and cultural frameworks to allow people like Mackey to innovate in combining do-gooding and profit-seeking while at the same time protecting people with less enlightened CEOs? Not sure I know the answer.

You should read the whole article. Lots of good stuff on Mackey and conscious capitalism–not just positive stuff–throughout.

Popularity: 60% [?]

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « Podcast: Practically Ideal, Episode 4
• » More Mackey

• BROWSE / IN Conscious Capitalism
• » More Mackey