February 12, 2009
Whole Foods CEO Espouses ‘Conscious Capitalism’
Is the
pursuit of profits for its own sake is a fruitless endeavor? That appears
to be the opinion of Whole Foods CEO John Mackey. However, to achieve
profits in the pursuit of a higher purpose is what Mr. Mackey calls
"conscious capitalism."
Speaking
at Yale University earlier this week, Mr. Mackey said, "I want us to evolve from
the profit focus to the purpose focus, from the short term to the long
term."
Mr.
Mackey, the Yale Daily News reported, sought to illustrate his point
with a metaphor about happiness. People consumed with their own happiness
tend to be self-centered and often fall short of their goal. On the other
hand, those that pursue higher goals often find happiness in their quest.
"I’ve
found that people who pursue happiness as a primary goal don’t achieve
it," he said,
"that in fact happiness is a by-product of other things, such as having
a purpose, service to others, excellence, personal growth, friendship, generosity,
compassion, forgiveness, love. And if we pursue those virtues, then one day
we may grow up and find that we are very happy."
Discussion Questions:
What do you make of John Mackey’s "conscious capitalism?" Do
his philosophical views have application beyond a niche natural/organic
foods retailer such as Whole Foods?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
My father taught me at a young age that if your only goal in life is to be rich, you probably won’t be. He also said that pursuing your passion will make you happy and productive and if it involves commerce you will more than likely make a good living, if not becoming very wealthy depending on the product or service you provide.
Sustainable businesses are typically the realization of the founder’s passion. Their endurance over time depends on the durability of the product or service in the marketplace and the ability of the company to deliver the vision profitably. Passion and profitability are quintessential to most entrepreneurs and business leaders. I think one cannot endure without the other.
There is no question Mr. Mackey’s thoughts are applicable to organizations of most any kind: private, public, for-profit, even not-for-profit, NGOs, etc. This is a broad perspective that when taken seriously, can generate internal culture shifts, at the very least.
I have seen other CEOs take a step back with their leadership teams to reevaluate their approach to the market, and attempt this less-tangible direction, that ultimately results in business growth. A global electronics retailer has had similar discussions with an appreciable uptick in public perception. People want to work there because of WHO they are, not just because they can earn a buck there.
This from the guy who worked in all the gray areas around Wild Oats???
Many of us have been led to believe that good = poor and rich = evil. Unfortunately there’s never been a movie where the rich rancher was loved by the whole town and got the girl. Look who dominates the news these days–rich evil people on Wall Street!
The truth is we don’t need to choose. Prosperity and purpose can and should go hand in hand. That’s the idea behind a book titled “The Profitable Power of Purpose.” The thing to aim for is making the world a better place and being highly rewarded for doing so.
Hey what can I say? He’s right. However let’s not forget that he is in business and all the happiness in the world will not pay the bills. So the question is, is this philosophy a personal one or a business one?
To get the answer, just ask any group of shareholders.
The pursuit of profit is a perfectly reasonable justification for being in business and about the only way to remain in business. However, the pursuit of profit to the exclusion of all else is a great way to run a business into the ground.
American companies’ slavish devotion to the concept of “shareholder value” for the last decade and more has produced a lot of short-term profits demanded by Wall Street analysts and not very much long-term investment in the future of the companies, leaving our business infrastructure much weaker than it should be. Privately-held firms and the few publicly-held ones whose boards are brave enough to take a beating from the analysts while building their business for the long term are more likely to survive the recession than those that gutted their enterprises for the sake of a few good quarters.
Imagine what a mess Costco might be in today if Jim Sinegal had knuckled under to the Wall Street analysts who constantly criticized him for refusing to cut store labor costs. The analysts think all workers are interchangeable; Sinegal knows better.
The pursuit of profit for profit’s sake has only ever been a short term success driver. The basis of ‘conscious capitalism’ makes perfect sense.
Let’s extend the example beyond health/natural foods for a moment, to a broader retail context. What comes first; customer satisfaction or profits? Profits certainly don’t drive customer satisfaction, but the reverse is certainly true. So, those retailers that constantly put the customer first in their decision making, rather than profits, more often than not end up with more money in the bank.
Same goes for sales people on the sales floor. There’s a paradox that says “the less you worry about the cash register, and the more you worry about satisfying your customer, will result in more money in the cash register”. You see, it’s not about the pursuit of money.
“Karma”. “What goes around comes around”. Whatever your beliefs, success is always sustainable when you do what is right by your customers and fellow human beings, not your shareholders.
Makes no difference. I’ve seen absolute SOBs thrive and prosper, and watched lots of nice guys finish last. And, vice versa. I agree with wanting to have a purpose in your life, though, and if you can tie that in with your business goals and be happy, well, I’m happy for you. Really.
Mr. Mackey’s approach is admirable, and the world would be a better place if all businesses had a similar view. But shareholder value must be a high priority as well, so there needs to be balance between the needs of all stakeholders. I seriously doubt the majority of consumers take “conscious capitalism” into account when shopping, and until they do, it won’t apply outside of niche markets.
I agree with Mr. Mackey. These principles have been applied by other grocery retailers as well. I’ve attended meetings with some of my clients and we discussed these virtues such as personal growth, friendship, love and the other feel-good words, while financial issues barely got touched. That’s fine for a privately-held or employee-owned company. In a publicly held company, it’s usually just lip service, however, in the case of Whole Foods, I believe they mean it.
As an academically trained philosopher, I hope that I’ll live long enough to see the commercial application of philosophy to commerce.
Now, on a more pragmatic note, the answer is, there shouldn’t be a place for pseudo-philosophy anywhere in the world.
Arguments of convenience, e.g., it is always wrong to kill, but it is all right to kill for your country or to defend your property, or whatever, have a long tradition in the Western philosophical canon. But longevity isn’t the same thing as validity. An action (say pursuing profit) is either ethical or non-ethical; it can’t be both without falling into the trap of logical relativism.
This is the classic ends-justify-the-means argument which has been used to rationalize every heinous thought and deed throughout history. So capitalism that makes you wealthy is bad–unless you share some crumbs with the masses, in which case it’s good. That’s silly and a classic example of poor logic and even shakier ethics.
Whole Foods needs a crash course in philosophy if its CEO wants to be a philosopher.
I might suggest starting with the Socratic dictum (stolen from the Oracle at Delphi) to “know thyself.”
If you’re in business to make money, you shouldn’t feel bad about it. There’s nothing unethical about accumulating wealth unless you do it in an unethical way, like overcharging because you’ve hoodwinked people into believing you’re up-charging them so you can save the planet.
The idea of conscious capitalism isn’t really new, though perhaps it is to Whole Foods’ CEO. Companies are (hopefully) functioning members of a variety of communities in which they work in and serve. Part of “membership” in the community should be some set of responsibilities to that community, whether it’s a geographic area, a lifestyle or simply its customers and employees.
That said, the role of the company in this respect is, and should be, a choice. That choice will have a wide range of implications in terms of its performance, how it attracts and retains employees and clients as well as its relationships with suppliers and the governments it must deal with. There are likely studies that have been done, though Mackey doesn’t seem to provide any real data other than his opinion.
Companies we work with, such as Kimpton Hotels and Merial (animal health) are effectively aligning their support of causes with the best interests of their businesses. This alignment ties closely to employees and customers and is both good for the business and good as a whole.
I’m afraid I have to agree with Ryan; this is a bit of an exercise in pseudo-philosophy. What exactly does the pursuit of happiness look like if it isn’t “a by-product of other things, such as having a purpose, service to others, excellence, personal growth, friendship, generosity, compassion, forgiveness, love”? I suppose that would be “hedonism,” and I’m not sure it’s breakthrough thinking to say that happiness through “purpose” is preferable to pure hedonism, and I’m not sure that is really all that useful in generating a real corporate philosophy.
Don’t get me wrong, Mackey’s right. As others have noted above, corporations that operate according to a set of values that put customers and the society they live in above short-term profits tend to win (and make more profit) in the long run. Reminding us of the truth of that principle is a good thing, even if it’s not breakthrough philosophy.
You can’t please all the people all the time and my belief is that you must choose which constituency that you want to provide with happiness. Looking to please stockholders in the retail environment makes for terrible decisions that are always short-term fixes that hide rather than address problems. Those who look to provide customers (and employees) with happiness often knowingly take the short-term hits and pain for long-term gains. Whether or not that was what Mr. Mackey was talking about I have no idea but if it was, then I totally agree with him.
Spot on! Surprised we didn’t take a look at the other retailer that’s been saying the same thing–Walmart. We think conscious retailers are not currently doing as well as “un-conscious” retailers, but long term, it’s a win-win.
As Howard Schultz said, in the future, in order to be good companies in the future, they’ll have to be truly good companies in every sense of the word.
He sounded a little vague and Dr. Phillish in his speech at Yale. (Thanks to Mike Tesler I now know I’m not the only one who wasn’t completely sure what Mackey was saying.) Seriously, haven’t most of us found that vision coupled with a consciousness or awareness about the long-term effects, impacts and repercussions of even small decisions are important in nearly all aspects of life? My impression is that there were many successful businesses of all sizes which could have been considered conscious capitalists until sometime about 20 years ago when it all seemed to change.
Great speech material, and that’s about it unless it’s real. There is a similar concept in born-again Christianity, which goes something like this: Good works do not lead to salvation; Rather, salvation leads to good works. You can’t earn your way to heaven and God does not grade on the curve. It’s pass/fail. (Bad news for Mafia Dons donating heavily to churches.)
At Whole Foods, if their performance and operating principles truly do spring from the altruistic philosophy described by Mackey, that’s admirable. But based on their prices I find it questionable. Sounds like they’re counting on being graded on the curve.
I applaud what Whole Foods’ CEO, John Mackey has said. It is time that all businesses consider their place in the world and level of contribution to it; making things better for those who have hurt the world in the past, and continuing their efforts if they have had a positive impact.
However, retail businesses are not charitable organizations. They still exist to make a profit and contribute to the health and welfare of the owners, investors and employees. It is the American, no the global dream, to find or make something that someone else wants, sell it to cover your costs, and make something extra to live a comfortable life.
It is a balancing act. And while there is greed in the business world, there is also envy of those who have already accomplished there goals. I think of the Paul Newman product category and how much their sales growth have helped charities. At the same time, competitive and good products have lost sales to the Newman brand. Do customers choose Newman Brands because of taste, price, or charity? What is fair, what is honest profit, and what is taking more than you need?
This has to be a step in a better direction for all of us. Taking the larger view that we are part of a global community, we have to make our choices reflect purpose, stewardship, and responsibilities to the communities we serve. Obviously, no business is going to succeed if it isn’t profitable for the longer term. The message in “conscious capitalism” for many of us is responsibility for consequences of the choices we make. Let’s hope so.
My, this has generated a lot of response.
I teach International Business Management in a Master’s program at the European School of Economics. In my scheme, we have two classes where we cover Ethics. One, “How Companies Work, Ethically or Not.” The other is “Can I Be Ethical within The Business Environment?” In these discussions, a couple of things become apparent:
1. Both the individual’s behavior and the company’s behavior are very much intertwined.
2. Companies that consider other factors in addition to profits in their decision making process and their culture tend to be more successful in the long run than those who don’t.
One might wonder about the U.S. auto industry. If 20 or 30 years ago some of their goals were to develop environment-friendly automobiles at the expense of short-term profits, would they then not need billions of dollars of government support today just to survive? I am very confident that not only was there not “higher purpose,” but also anyone who suggested that a “higher purpose” should be considered was quickly advised to find another career.
I challenge my colleagues. And it is not a big challenge–to come up with other examples of corporate demise as a result of pursuit of profit.
I read this on a website yesterday where someone was quoting Peter Drucker:
“There is only one definition of business purpose: to create a customer.
“It is the customer who determines what a business is. It is the customer alone whose willingness to pay for a good or for a service converts economic resources into wealth, things into goods.
“Profit is not the explanation, cause, or rationale of business behavior and business decisions, but rather the test of their validity. If archangels instead of businessmen sat in directors’ chairs, they would still have to be concerned with profitability, despite their total lack of personal interest in making profits.
“A company can make a social contribution only if it is highly profitable.
Works for me!
Walmart and others built a brand around ‘Every Day Low Prices’. Whole Foods may be after ‘Every Day High Values’. To execute on EDLP, you need a certain business model. To execute on EDHV, another business model.
The industry labored over the details of the supply chain (think Streamlined Logistics II and CPFR). To succeed, EDHV requires the same kind of focus. Executing at the community level (and I’m not talking about the high school car wash), such as alliances with the PTA to provide childhood obesity programs co-sponsored by the Rotary club and the local hospital and promoted by the local churches, is a real pain; that’s the business model of local execution. Right now, it’s barely understood and mostly manual. But if WF can nail it, they may get that P/E back up there.
Is it smart for executives to make self-serving speeches? Or is it best to just spend time improving the business? Does it benefit society to distribute self-serving press releases? Does it help your stock price or your sales to make speeches at universities? If you’re going to make speeches to university students, shouldn’t you stick to what you know? A supermarket exec’s speech on sourcing might be more educational than a speech on personal fulfillment. Should universities hire philosophers to make speeches on logistics?
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
My father taught me at a young age that if your only goal in life is to be rich, you probably won’t be. He also said that pursuing your passion will make you happy and productive and if it involves commerce you will more than likely make a good living, if not becoming very wealthy depending on the product or service you provide.
Sustainable businesses are typically the realization of the founder’s passion. Their endurance over time depends on the durability of the product or service in the marketplace and the ability of the company to deliver the vision profitably. Passion and profitability are quintessential to most entrepreneurs and business leaders. I think one cannot endure without the other.
There is no question Mr. Mackey’s thoughts are applicable to organizations of most any kind: private, public, for-profit, even not-for-profit, NGOs, etc. This is a broad perspective that when taken seriously, can generate internal culture shifts, at the very least.
I have seen other CEOs take a step back with their leadership teams to reevaluate their approach to the market, and attempt this less-tangible direction, that ultimately results in business growth. A global electronics retailer has had similar discussions with an appreciable uptick in public perception. People want to work there because of WHO they are, not just because they can earn a buck there.
This from the guy who worked in all the gray areas around Wild Oats???
Many of us have been led to believe that good = poor and rich = evil. Unfortunately there’s never been a movie where the rich rancher was loved by the whole town and got the girl. Look who dominates the news these days–rich evil people on Wall Street!
The truth is we don’t need to choose. Prosperity and purpose can and should go hand in hand. That’s the idea behind a book titled “The Profitable Power of Purpose.” The thing to aim for is making the world a better place and being highly rewarded for doing so.
Hey what can I say? He’s right. However let’s not forget that he is in business and all the happiness in the world will not pay the bills. So the question is, is this philosophy a personal one or a business one?
To get the answer, just ask any group of shareholders.
The pursuit of profit is a perfectly reasonable justification for being in business and about the only way to remain in business. However, the pursuit of profit to the exclusion of all else is a great way to run a business into the ground.
American companies’ slavish devotion to the concept of “shareholder value” for the last decade and more has produced a lot of short-term profits demanded by Wall Street analysts and not very much long-term investment in the future of the companies, leaving our business infrastructure much weaker than it should be. Privately-held firms and the few publicly-held ones whose boards are brave enough to take a beating from the analysts while building their business for the long term are more likely to survive the recession than those that gutted their enterprises for the sake of a few good quarters.
Imagine what a mess Costco might be in today if Jim Sinegal had knuckled under to the Wall Street analysts who constantly criticized him for refusing to cut store labor costs. The analysts think all workers are interchangeable; Sinegal knows better.
The pursuit of profit for profit’s sake has only ever been a short term success driver. The basis of ‘conscious capitalism’ makes perfect sense.
Let’s extend the example beyond health/natural foods for a moment, to a broader retail context. What comes first; customer satisfaction or profits? Profits certainly don’t drive customer satisfaction, but the reverse is certainly true. So, those retailers that constantly put the customer first in their decision making, rather than profits, more often than not end up with more money in the bank.
Same goes for sales people on the sales floor. There’s a paradox that says “the less you worry about the cash register, and the more you worry about satisfying your customer, will result in more money in the cash register”. You see, it’s not about the pursuit of money.
“Karma”. “What goes around comes around”. Whatever your beliefs, success is always sustainable when you do what is right by your customers and fellow human beings, not your shareholders.
Makes no difference. I’ve seen absolute SOBs thrive and prosper, and watched lots of nice guys finish last. And, vice versa. I agree with wanting to have a purpose in your life, though, and if you can tie that in with your business goals and be happy, well, I’m happy for you. Really.
Mr. Mackey’s approach is admirable, and the world would be a better place if all businesses had a similar view. But shareholder value must be a high priority as well, so there needs to be balance between the needs of all stakeholders. I seriously doubt the majority of consumers take “conscious capitalism” into account when shopping, and until they do, it won’t apply outside of niche markets.
I agree with Mr. Mackey. These principles have been applied by other grocery retailers as well. I’ve attended meetings with some of my clients and we discussed these virtues such as personal growth, friendship, love and the other feel-good words, while financial issues barely got touched. That’s fine for a privately-held or employee-owned company. In a publicly held company, it’s usually just lip service, however, in the case of Whole Foods, I believe they mean it.
As an academically trained philosopher, I hope that I’ll live long enough to see the commercial application of philosophy to commerce.
Now, on a more pragmatic note, the answer is, there shouldn’t be a place for pseudo-philosophy anywhere in the world.
Arguments of convenience, e.g., it is always wrong to kill, but it is all right to kill for your country or to defend your property, or whatever, have a long tradition in the Western philosophical canon. But longevity isn’t the same thing as validity. An action (say pursuing profit) is either ethical or non-ethical; it can’t be both without falling into the trap of logical relativism.
This is the classic ends-justify-the-means argument which has been used to rationalize every heinous thought and deed throughout history. So capitalism that makes you wealthy is bad–unless you share some crumbs with the masses, in which case it’s good. That’s silly and a classic example of poor logic and even shakier ethics.
Whole Foods needs a crash course in philosophy if its CEO wants to be a philosopher.
I might suggest starting with the Socratic dictum (stolen from the Oracle at Delphi) to “know thyself.”
If you’re in business to make money, you shouldn’t feel bad about it. There’s nothing unethical about accumulating wealth unless you do it in an unethical way, like overcharging because you’ve hoodwinked people into believing you’re up-charging them so you can save the planet.
The idea of conscious capitalism isn’t really new, though perhaps it is to Whole Foods’ CEO. Companies are (hopefully) functioning members of a variety of communities in which they work in and serve. Part of “membership” in the community should be some set of responsibilities to that community, whether it’s a geographic area, a lifestyle or simply its customers and employees.
That said, the role of the company in this respect is, and should be, a choice. That choice will have a wide range of implications in terms of its performance, how it attracts and retains employees and clients as well as its relationships with suppliers and the governments it must deal with. There are likely studies that have been done, though Mackey doesn’t seem to provide any real data other than his opinion.
Companies we work with, such as Kimpton Hotels and Merial (animal health) are effectively aligning their support of causes with the best interests of their businesses. This alignment ties closely to employees and customers and is both good for the business and good as a whole.
I’m afraid I have to agree with Ryan; this is a bit of an exercise in pseudo-philosophy. What exactly does the pursuit of happiness look like if it isn’t “a by-product of other things, such as having a purpose, service to others, excellence, personal growth, friendship, generosity, compassion, forgiveness, love”? I suppose that would be “hedonism,” and I’m not sure it’s breakthrough thinking to say that happiness through “purpose” is preferable to pure hedonism, and I’m not sure that is really all that useful in generating a real corporate philosophy.
Don’t get me wrong, Mackey’s right. As others have noted above, corporations that operate according to a set of values that put customers and the society they live in above short-term profits tend to win (and make more profit) in the long run. Reminding us of the truth of that principle is a good thing, even if it’s not breakthrough philosophy.
You can’t please all the people all the time and my belief is that you must choose which constituency that you want to provide with happiness. Looking to please stockholders in the retail environment makes for terrible decisions that are always short-term fixes that hide rather than address problems. Those who look to provide customers (and employees) with happiness often knowingly take the short-term hits and pain for long-term gains. Whether or not that was what Mr. Mackey was talking about I have no idea but if it was, then I totally agree with him.
Spot on! Surprised we didn’t take a look at the other retailer that’s been saying the same thing–Walmart. We think conscious retailers are not currently doing as well as “un-conscious” retailers, but long term, it’s a win-win.
As Howard Schultz said, in the future, in order to be good companies in the future, they’ll have to be truly good companies in every sense of the word.
He sounded a little vague and Dr. Phillish in his speech at Yale. (Thanks to Mike Tesler I now know I’m not the only one who wasn’t completely sure what Mackey was saying.) Seriously, haven’t most of us found that vision coupled with a consciousness or awareness about the long-term effects, impacts and repercussions of even small decisions are important in nearly all aspects of life? My impression is that there were many successful businesses of all sizes which could have been considered conscious capitalists until sometime about 20 years ago when it all seemed to change.
Great speech material, and that’s about it unless it’s real. There is a similar concept in born-again Christianity, which goes something like this: Good works do not lead to salvation; Rather, salvation leads to good works. You can’t earn your way to heaven and God does not grade on the curve. It’s pass/fail. (Bad news for Mafia Dons donating heavily to churches.)
At Whole Foods, if their performance and operating principles truly do spring from the altruistic philosophy described by Mackey, that’s admirable. But based on their prices I find it questionable. Sounds like they’re counting on being graded on the curve.
I applaud what Whole Foods’ CEO, John Mackey has said. It is time that all businesses consider their place in the world and level of contribution to it; making things better for those who have hurt the world in the past, and continuing their efforts if they have had a positive impact.
However, retail businesses are not charitable organizations. They still exist to make a profit and contribute to the health and welfare of the owners, investors and employees. It is the American, no the global dream, to find or make something that someone else wants, sell it to cover your costs, and make something extra to live a comfortable life.
It is a balancing act. And while there is greed in the business world, there is also envy of those who have already accomplished there goals. I think of the Paul Newman product category and how much their sales growth have helped charities. At the same time, competitive and good products have lost sales to the Newman brand. Do customers choose Newman Brands because of taste, price, or charity? What is fair, what is honest profit, and what is taking more than you need?
This has to be a step in a better direction for all of us. Taking the larger view that we are part of a global community, we have to make our choices reflect purpose, stewardship, and responsibilities to the communities we serve. Obviously, no business is going to succeed if it isn’t profitable for the longer term. The message in “conscious capitalism” for many of us is responsibility for consequences of the choices we make. Let’s hope so.
My, this has generated a lot of response.
I teach International Business Management in a Master’s program at the European School of Economics. In my scheme, we have two classes where we cover Ethics. One, “How Companies Work, Ethically or Not.” The other is “Can I Be Ethical within The Business Environment?” In these discussions, a couple of things become apparent:
1. Both the individual’s behavior and the company’s behavior are very much intertwined.
2. Companies that consider other factors in addition to profits in their decision making process and their culture tend to be more successful in the long run than those who don’t.
One might wonder about the U.S. auto industry. If 20 or 30 years ago some of their goals were to develop environment-friendly automobiles at the expense of short-term profits, would they then not need billions of dollars of government support today just to survive? I am very confident that not only was there not “higher purpose,” but also anyone who suggested that a “higher purpose” should be considered was quickly advised to find another career.
I challenge my colleagues. And it is not a big challenge–to come up with other examples of corporate demise as a result of pursuit of profit.
I read this on a website yesterday where someone was quoting Peter Drucker:
“There is only one definition of business purpose: to create a customer.
“It is the customer who determines what a business is. It is the customer alone whose willingness to pay for a good or for a service converts economic resources into wealth, things into goods.
“Profit is not the explanation, cause, or rationale of business behavior and business decisions, but rather the test of their validity. If archangels instead of businessmen sat in directors’ chairs, they would still have to be concerned with profitability, despite their total lack of personal interest in making profits.
“A company can make a social contribution only if it is highly profitable.
Works for me!
Walmart and others built a brand around ‘Every Day Low Prices’. Whole Foods may be after ‘Every Day High Values’. To execute on EDLP, you need a certain business model. To execute on EDHV, another business model.
The industry labored over the details of the supply chain (think Streamlined Logistics II and CPFR). To succeed, EDHV requires the same kind of focus. Executing at the community level (and I’m not talking about the high school car wash), such as alliances with the PTA to provide childhood obesity programs co-sponsored by the Rotary club and the local hospital and promoted by the local churches, is a real pain; that’s the business model of local execution. Right now, it’s barely understood and mostly manual. But if WF can nail it, they may get that P/E back up there.
Is it smart for executives to make self-serving speeches? Or is it best to just spend time improving the business? Does it benefit society to distribute self-serving press releases? Does it help your stock price or your sales to make speeches at universities? If you’re going to make speeches to university students, shouldn’t you stick to what you know? A supermarket exec’s speech on sourcing might be more educational than a speech on personal fulfillment. Should universities hire philosophers to make speeches on logistics?