TWiki . Edumacation . MaryKayOpinion94	TWiki . { Main | Edumacation | TWiki | Test }
	Edumacation . { Home | Users | Changes | Search | Go }

Okay, I may set off a firestorm with this, but that's not my intention: what I'd rather do is open a discussion for like-minded people who are drawn to, and perhaps have already been recruited by, MK, but who have hit some snags when looking for clarity on both process, and some of the dollars-and-cents reporting that should be readily available in any business.

Let's talk openly amongst ourselves about the very things said about MK by people outside of MK, or who have left MK, who bear a bad impression of the company (and there are many of both types); let's explore some of the criticisms, without getting defensive or angry, to see if any merit is to be found, and if so, how can the problem(s) be corrected and the tarnished company image then restored. The following are just a few issues that come up over and over on message boards, and in general discussions, dealing with MK:

Recruiting: If it is, for example, true that what is said in initial recruiting in re the potential profitability of unit sales is not only not actually likely to be true, but that once amongst the "inner circle" of NSDs it is admitted openly to be untrue, and all the emphasis and "training" is then focussed on endless recruiting, why is that so? If the existing selling structure doesn't work as promised (in initial recruiting), why not either change the structure or change the recruiting promise? In other words, why not be honest?

Inventory: Bullying and/or pressuring people to "invest" in inventory they can ill afford may boost numbers in the short run, but is very bad business in the middle and long runs: this issue may well be the single greatest cause of unhappiness and disillusion with MK - not only among active and former consultants and directors, but among EVERYONE THEY know and tell of the problem - this is so simple a thing to solve through restructuring, I cannot understand why it persists as it does.

Loyalty v. informed opinion: People outside of MK often comment that the company and its business practices are embraced by many MK representatives with an almost cultish devotion. As I wrote recently to someone who herself has decided to leave off working for MK: corporate cultures can be very powerful, and can even temporarily alter our perception of reality. If, for example, the company SAYS: work by the Golden Rule, Go-Give, Fair Shake, and Square Deal, but has built and MAINTAINS a selling and management structure that punishes, or least does not reward, such advocated behaviour, while at the same time that structure DOES (intentionally or not, makes no difference) reward unethical and exploitative biz practices, then company representatives will find themselves in the classic double bind (and no-win) situation.

There's an insidious undermining effect that is inevitable with this sort of setup, too: what should you, the representative, believe to be the truth? what you are TOLD is the truth, or what you OBSERVE/EXPERIENCE to be the truth? And, let me hasten to add, there will be as many truthful experiences of MK as there are people who work for and with the company. No one's experience should be discounted, or discredited, in favor of following a "party line" that says that the "living the dream" scenario is the only possible outcome/ experience UNLESS the representative is, in some way, inherently inadequate and/or unwilling to work hard. That's not logical, is devoid of common sense, and can be deeply and painfully invalidating of someone's genuine experience, personal abilities, and goodwill, should their experience differ in any way from the "promise" - and I don't think that sort of invalidation reflects putting God - or even simple good sense - first.

Another side effect of this sort of "single perspective management" in a company like MK, is that it puts the directors helplessly in the middle, between their potential recruits/active consultants, and the company; again, as I wrote to an exiting director (who has, sadly and ironically enough, the "right stuff" and the "right heart" for the business): If accepting the "MK accepted version" ("living the dream") means being disloyal to yourself, because it demands that you discredit and invalidate your own experience and perception, and if remaining loyal to yourself means, of necessity, demonstrating "disloyalty" to MK, by questioning the "MK accepted version," and, by extension, questioning MK itself - "a great company with the right values, that gives women a unique and precious opportunity" - then the escape hatch is blaming the potential recruit(s) and/or active consultant(s) [I see this over and over on various message boards, including this one] :

In this setup, you (as director) and MK can BOTH be "correct" in perception and understanding, even if apparently in conflict, ONLY if the REAL problem is the potential recruits and the consultants themselves: the potential recruits are just (stupidly) resistant, recalcitrant, refusing to "get" what a great opportunity MK really is, therefore reluctant to join up in sufficient numbers; and, the consultants (!) just aren't "working their business" - they're not ambitious enough, not adequately persevering, not skilful enough, not the "right" personality, not sufficiently motivated and committed - THAT'S the problem! It's not that there is anything inherently wrong with the selling structure (the MK version is true), and it's not that I, director, am crazy, or inherently incapable of doing a good job - after all, I've been successful at many other things, in the past - (my perception is also true), it's MY PEOPLE!!!

This kind of scapegoating is seen, as I said, all over these boards (that is not to say that some people just aren't good at MK, just as there are people who try and find out they're not good at any number of other businesses), instead of some open and honest discussion of where the company may need to change. When it gets to the point that MK representatives feel compelled, out of misplaced and misunderstood "loyalty," to assert that if MK has been found to be non-compliant with regulatory and tax requirements, then that's "okay," and anyone who draws attention to that, or attempts to enforce compliance, is a "whiner" and/or a "blamer," then the time is long overdue for some fresh air in the conference room.

Real loyalty is the antithesis of blind devotion ... forgive me, I paraphrase here: Not my country, right or wrong - but my country: if right, to keep her right; if wrong: to make her right.

Bunny Watson - 05 Feb 2004

Topic MaryKayOpinion94 . { Edit | Ref-By | Attach | Diffs | r1.2 | > | r1.1 }

You must register before editing pages or using other extended features on this TWiki system.

Revision r1.2 - 07 Feb 2004 - 17:08 by BunnyWatson  Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2000-2005 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration tool is the property of the contributing authors. Collect email addresses here. Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback.