Whole Foods “Markets as Non-Conversation”

What?
Whole Foods Market has barred executive-titled employees, directors on its board, global vice presidents, regional presidents, and regional vice presidents from participating in any online conversation not sponsored by the company. This change in company policy is the direct result of kinky business behavior from its CEO, John Mackey.

In July, Mackey was outed by the FCC for having posted over 1,300 messages from 1999 to mid-2006 on the Yahoo! Financial boards. In these postings, Mackey hid behind an alias (“rahodeb”) and trumpeted Whole Foods while trashing Wild Oats. About eight-months after rahodeb’s last posting on Yahoo!, Whole Foods initiated a merger with Wild Oats.

---

So What?
It is sad to hear a company is unable to trust its executives to be ethical, considerate, and appropriate when conversing online. It’s even more sad for Whole Foods to enforce such a strident ruling given it was founded upon core Libertarian beliefs of maximum freedom and minimum governance.

The Whole Foods business operates under the belief stores should have the freedom to meet the needs of its unique customers and team members. The only governing rule stores must dogmatically adhere to is all food sold at Whole Foods Market must be free from artificial preservatives, colors, flavors, sweeteners, and hydrogenated oils. The company has a Quality Standards Policy, which lists all unacceptable food ingredients. Products containing ingredients on this list are not allowed to be sold at Whole Foods stores.

Here’s where the company’s Libertarian ways truly come to life ... individual stores have the autonomy to stock whatever products they desire so long as the ingredients in the products adhere to these quality standards. The Whole Foods executive team trusts its stores to qualify and disqualify the products they sale.

Yet, Whole Foods is unable to trust its executives to qualify and disqualify how they can participate in online conversations about the company they work for. Interesting. Seems to me, the Libertarian answer to all of this is to develop a Blogging Standards Policy for every employee to follow. There are examples galore of corporate blogging guidelines for Whole Foods to use as a starting point.

---

What Now?
As a former marketer at Whole Foods, I find the corporate mandate that execs cannot participate in online conversations disheartening. It’s a knee-jerk, short-sided, and regrettable decision.

However, I hope this spurs more Whole Foods Market team members (company term for “employees”) to blog on a company website blog or on a blog they create outside of the company. At the least, every Whole Foods Market location should have a company blog on the Whole Foods Website. And at the very, very least … Whole Foods should have a rich internal blog or some other internal online forum where team members can learn from one another and from those higher-up execs who have been barred from such online conversations outside of the company’s blog moat.

Sure, the company has an informative and snazzy cooking video blog called SECRET INGREDIENT as well a handful of podcasts and blogs. But there is so much more opportunity for Whole Foods Market to share their unique point-of-view on food and the natural food difference.

Here’s hoping enthusiastic Whole Foods Market team members start their own blogs and share their passions for changing the way the world eats, shops, and enjoys food.

Comments

[Branding Blog]

Any company that dictates that I can't engage in conversation online is not a company I would want to work for. It seems so ridiculous that they would go so far.

What ever happened to the free speech thingy?

[johnmoore (from Brand Autopsy)]

Keep in mind ... Whole Foods has banned its executive-level team from posting or commenting on non-company blogs. This still leaves the rest of the company to add their voice to online conversations.

It is odd to think Whole Foods has more trust in its part-time store employees than it does with its corporate execs to behave themselves in online conversations.

[218Matt]

It is odd that the focus is on the "most trusted" group in the organization. Those who hold executive positions got there by earning trust (being responsible). Is this more of a face-saving measure with those who were with Wild Oats? It just makes no sense. If it were company wide, I might be inclined to believe that it is an honest effort. You should forward your blogging policy idea to them and see if you get a response.

@ 218Matt... according to my blog tracking stats, folks from Whole Foods have read this post. Since a Blogging Policy idea isn't new, I'm sure they discussed it as a potential course of action but instead, went with an all-out executive blogging ban. -- johnmoore

[Pat Nerr]

jeeze John... Could you imagine if GreenApronStories was written by an executive?

That would be wild...

[Branding Blog]

I know but it's still silly that execs can't comment on other blogs. I agree that policies are the way to go. Have a little faith for God's sake.

Can they even do that legally? I guess they can but it just sounds so Big Brother.

Scott White

[Martin Bishop]

I think this drastic overreaction just shows how aberrant John Mackey's anonymous postings were to the company culture (that he, himself, helped to create).

This behavior was so far from what the company believes in and from such an unexpected source that they have been caught completely flatfooted without a clue how to respond appropriately.

[AnnaMaria Turano]

Wow - this flies in the face of Whole Foods' dedication to brands/companies with authentic stories and philosophies grounded in "whole" living. It seems that Whole Foods should consider allowing senior execs to post but require them to make themselves transparent (meaning, disclose their position/relationship with Whole Foods). I would think that Whole Foods fans would appreciate full disclosure from all levels of the organization when it comes to posting/blogging.

[johnmoore (from Brand Autopsy)]

AnnaMaria ... thanks for dropping by. (I've noticed John Rosen has also dropped by recently. Thanks.)

per your comment ... I'm not sure I follow you totally. Yes, Whole Foods has a strong point-of-view about the best food being the purest food. They also have a strong point-of-view about transparency with employees. Any company that make salaries available for every employee to see says a lot about its commitment to transparency.

But we sometimes get confused with applying Whole Foods philosophies to food and employees to how they view customers. The truth is ... Whole Foods has a long way to go in being more open to customers. (Whole Foods also has a long way to go with being more open to Wall Street.) The real Whole Foods is more protective than it is open. This is becoming more apparent with the scrutiny the company is receiving nowadays.

[Jay Ehret]

John,
Wouldn't the real solution have been to fire John Mackey for gross violation of company culture and core values?

Whole Foods states one of its core values as "integrity in all business dealings" saying that it will treat everyone with "fairness and integrity at all times and expect the same in return." (from the company website)

Can you keep John Mackey AND those core values? I think not. Instead Whole Foods answer has been to keep Mackey instead of its core values, thus necessitating the change in corporate culture.

[johnmoore (from Brand Autopsy)]

Jay ... it ain't easy to fire a co-founder, is it?

Mackey has three titles at WFM: (1) co-founder, (2) CEO, and (3) Chairman. As a WFM shareholder, I advocated stripping Mackey of his CEO title, which is more cermonial since the East Coast & West Coast COO's are actually co-CEOs.

Punishing Mackey by taking the CEO title away from Mackey would have sent a sign to Wall Street and the FTC that WFM took this issue very seriously.

Mackey needs to be associated with WFM. The solution isn't forcing him out. It was his dream to change the way people eat, shop, and enjoy food. Mackey MUST continue to be a part of WFM realizing its dream. And he could continue being a part of this dream as Chairman and co-founder and not as an everyday executive.

[Christine Flanagan]

This too shall pass. They're panicking and I'm sure some crisis communications specialist told them they needed to send a very strong message to Wall Street. (Blah, blah, blah.) What’s more interesting to me related to something I heard Richard Saul Wurman (founder of TED) say a few weeks ago. He was asked if CEOs should be public faces for their companies. Wurman responded by saying that he virtually never has a politician or a CEO speak at any of his events. And that’s because they never tell the truth, he said. Not because they won’t, but because they can’t.

Now I’m not saying that Mackey’s alternate persona was 100% truthful but how many of us were just jazzed by his candor when we found out what he’d been doing? The problem with Mackey is that he wanted it both ways. The things he really wanted to say, he knew he couldn’t, so he channels Sybil and goes on a verbal rampage. Is it a lack of maturity? Sure. But how fair is it to be constantly muzzled, to be more and more constrained the further up the ladder you go or the more financially successful you become.

Here’s my wish for Mackey: take the hit, lose the CEO title and keep saying what you’ve always been saying (but just be you this time.) It’s good for spunky Whole Foods and well, as an ardent fan and crazy food shopper, it’s good for me - I appreciate the attitude.