From the information given in the Case Study, I’m not sure that there was a very large role played by McGregor’s Theory Y. From what I learned about the employees at Whole Foods is that management hires good people, make sure they are well trained, and flourish in the workplace. While these do factor in to Theory Y, without any other information on the employees, I don’t feel that there is quite enough evidence to say that it plays a large role in Whole Foods Market. There are many ways in which Whole Foods builds human and social capital. The qualities that they possess for Individual Human Capital are: Intelligence/abilities/knowledge, technical and social skills, confidence/self-esteem, and motivation/commitment. For Social Capital: Teamwork, Connections/Sources, Win-win Negotiations, Shared visions/goals and shared values.
I do feel that this case does bring the 21st century manager to life. There are many aspects that fit into how Whole Foods runs, such as: Compensation criteria- skills, results; View of people- primary resource, human capital; Nature of interpersonal relationships- Cooperative (win-win). This makes sense, if managers are hiring people who are well trained, it fits into compensation criteria. And Mackey made it clear that they have a cooperative win-win relationship, by wanting to expand “the pie” and letting everyone get a larger piece of it.
Primarily I would locate Whole Foods under the Philanthropic Responsibility part of Carroll’s Global Corporate Social Responsibility Pyramid. What sticks out to me so much in this case study is how Mackey spoke about a bigger pie and everyone getting a bigger piece, instead of someone getting a larger piece which would require someone getting a smaller piece. I think that is definitely what is desired by stakeholders. However I feel that Whole Foods does fit under all four categories of the pyramid.
From the brief case study on Whole Foods, I feel...