John Mackey had a bad 2007, but he’s bouncing back in 2008 and the Whole Foods chief is finally talking about “rahodeb,” the Internet alter-ego he used to leave scathing chatroom remarks about competitor Wild Oats just as he was angling to buy them. I imagine Mackey has been itching all over to talk about this. He loves to share huge opinions. That’s what got him into trouble — he created his alter ego because he had an uncontrollable desire to share opinions that a CEO is not allowed to. But the lawyers hit the mute button during the SEC’s investigation.
A few weeks ago, he was cleared by the SEC. On Saturday, he got an honorary degree from Bentley. And he still commands a food empire that is a huge social player in this country. He’s probably feeling a lot better, and so while he was in town he gave the Boston Globe a Q&A, which was published today and are his first public comments since the “rahodeb” story broke. Here’s the best part:
Rahodeb had no power. It was just an anonymous poster. No one knew who I was. How could a poster online like that move markets? Obviously I couldn’t and didn’t and wasn’t even trying to because I knew no one was taking what I wrote seriously.
Mackey was wrong to do what he did, especially at the time that he did it. But you can see why he did what he did. Maybe opinion is like porn for Mackey. He just had to say what he had to say; had to get it out. But CEOs are oratorically handcuffed; Mackey, in the interview, points out that “First amendment rights apply to chief executive officers as well.” But you’re limited in how you can use those rights if everything you do can affect the fortune of a company.
Mackey is generally good at being an outspoken leader who’s trying to be out front on the issues, and he deserves to be applauded for going past the candor level of the typical CEO. But this is different territory here; he badmouthed a competitor. You can do that, but you can’t do it anonymously. The first amendment may get you out of criminal court, but that’s one you’re going to lose in the court of ethics.
