Thursday, March 20, 2008

Can we "fix" the problem?

Lookingforanswers made the following point recently:

"A type of thing sounds like it would be good to have but for MK Directors and above so that new people coming in could choose the unit they'd like to work with."

Around Christmastime I made a similar suggestion on the forums at Pink Lighthouse.

I am not saying that it would be simple... certainly would need a lot of work in the logistical department, and many, many people will "cry foul" when they find themselves on the proverbial "naughty" list.

Not to mention we have all observed where someone (or corporate themselves) is BLASTED for using standard business operating procedures, so there would have to be some things that are off limits in the "scrutinizing" department!

Considering all that, what criteria - if such a service were available - would you want to be able to rate directors you had worked with?

What criteria would you want to be able to see before you signed with a certain director?

If you had a friend (or even a casual acquaintance)who had invested significant time and energy into recruiting you, but worked in a unit with a "shady" (not to be confused with Shades!) director, would you bail on that friend in favor of a "better" unit? Or would you stick it our regardless?

Obviously the problem presented in the last question would need to be addressed as well as many others. I am NOT suggesting that it would be easy! But I do think there should be SOME form of accountability that directors are held to and this MIGHT be one way of doing it.



  1. It depends largely on what the problems are. For example, the director I have mentioned is known for constantly calling to request orders. She also knowingly takes customers from other consultants. Most of what I have heard about her is hearsay. I believe what I have heard. My friend had a customer come to her upset because this director offered her a discount if she would leave her consultant and order with her instead. I don't think MKC can police that type of behavior.
    The only behavior MKC can police is actual illegal stuff such as unauthorized use of a consultant's ID or credit card in making production. I don't know that this director I know of has done any of those things.
    I think that there is a lot of unethical behavior that doesn't necessarily violate the agreement. That's my issue with directors. And then for said director to outright refuse to allow someone to adopt elsewhere is beyond me. But these aren't things MKC can police, are they?
    The other piece is I can't report her because it's just hearsay to me. I have no idea if anyone in her unit (or former unit members) have made any formal complaints. Some of them won't even talk about what she does. I had a prospective team member who had been adopted to that unit years ago and got out of MK and was thinking of signing again. She wanted to be absolutely sure I was in no way affiliated with that other director, but she wouldn't really tell me anything she did.
    I know I'm just talking about one specific situation, but I think there may be others like this that aren't necessarily breaking any rules, but they really aren't doing things the Mary Kay Way.

    MK Rules wrote a post on it last year about Illegality vs Morality. That can be found here:

    Granted, her post isn't exactly about the same types of things, but it's on a similar track.

  2. A very tough one, because what one sees initially may not be the "whole" picture. You could know someone for awhile and defend them, praise them, etc.. but after time realize the true character of the inidivual and then your opinion would change.

    Many would not be able to separate personality differences with good/bad director behavior.

    Everyone has different standards and levels of conduct.

    I have alot of issues with a particular director, she frontloads, rushes newer consultants into DIQ, gets their production by getting new consultants to come in with large orders so they make production but what happens is they get the car & directorship fast but they have no skills and everyone has loads of product and no one is really focused on selling and guess what, it is downhill from there, I have watched (from afar) this happen to about 3 in the last year. Of course this director really wants to be a National and fast.

    If you had talked to these ladies before the downward spiral, they loved her, they swore she walked on water and was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

    She does have a charming personality, and alot of charisma, so until someone "saw the light" she would look like an awesome director.

    On the other hand, one of my bestest friends is an adoptee in my unit, because I have dark eyes, dark hair, and am pretty low key, the first meeting she attended (and it wasn't the big rah, rah meetings she was accustomed too, (and we still laugh about this to this day) she told me later, I took one look at you and thought you were one cold hearted witch, - then I got to know you.

    Glad she got to know me before she rated me!!

    We have been buddies now for over 12 years.

    I think more would be judged on personality than skill.

  3. i think this huge possibility for confusion is why corporate has stayed away from trying to police these manners. There is a fine line between what is acutally illegal and what is just unethical so to speak, but not really illegal. there is a difference. Much of what goes on IMO is unethical, and comes down to personality clashes. Can corporate reprimand heresay?
    I have "heard" of directors that are not exactly "go give" but noone has reported them to my knowledge. The people that know first hand often do not report them, but they will spread the word around town about how they operate.

    Dont know if this is something that can really be fixed with a concrete rule by corporate

  4. LookingforAnswersMarch 20, 2008 at 7:08 PM

    I can see everyone's points on sure wouldn't be easy and MK certainly wouldn't be able to govern it.

    There was a bit of an uproar in Canada last year when doctors here found out that they too were being put on the rateMD list but you know it seems to work.

    I looked up my family doctor and sure enough he rated well but he's always running late. No biggy for me because he really takes his time with each and every patient.

    Then I looked up the doctor of a friend of mine and she rated poorly. It didn't surprise me in the least because the things that my friend has told me about her are astonishing.

    Both treat their patients for their immediate needs but the difference is one talks with the patient and therefore makes the patient feel much better and the other pats the patient on the head and says take a vacation.

    I wouldn’t have a clue on how to set up one of those rating websites but categories similar to the doctor one would work. Plus there a section for comments.

    I cut and paste this from the site's has three ratings categories:
    Staff - How is the service and helpfulness of the doctor's staff? (This category is NOT included in the "Overall Quality" rating.)

    Punctuality - How long does the doctor keep you waiting? (This category is NOT included in the "Overall Quality" rating.)

    Helpfulness - This category rates the doctor's helpfulness and approachability. Is the doctor approachable and nice? Is he rude, arrogant, or just plain mean? Does he have a good bed-side manner?

    Knowledge - This is the most important of the three categories, at least to most people. How did his treatments work for you?

    Overall Quality - The Overall Quality rating is the average of a doctor's Helpfulness and Knowledge ratings, and is what determines the type of "smiley face" that the Doctor receives. Due to popular demand, a doctor's Punctuality rating is NOT used when computing the Overall Quality rating.
    Professionalism could be you have to hold a rubber chicken in a meeting for example.

    Certainly something like Shades said at the beginning where the director was pulling customers away from other consultants.

    How about an Ethical rating?

  5. LookingforAnswersMarch 20, 2008 at 7:27 PM

    Too funny not to share....I was reading the FAQs section on the actually addresses a number of things.

    Near the bottom of the FAQ's I guess a doctor has asked about getting their name removed from the list - short answer - they can't. But then the next questions ask about suing that website. The people that set up that website have sited legal stuff in there basically about freedom of speech.

    Maybe these people could set up a rating site...looks like they had a hand in the development of and too.

  6. I don't know that any of these sites are very beneficial - I mean if you get 1 person who gets upset what would stop them from slamming the director/doctor/professor -- whoever, and ruin their reputation.

    I don't use these sites. I've always found personal referrals to be a better source of informtion.


For Further Reading...

This Week On Pink Truth - Click Here
Pros and Cons of Mary Kay - Read or Contribute or Both!
First Post - Why I Started This Blog
The Article I Wrote For (here) (there)
If this is your first visit please leave a comment here. I would love to hear from you!
If you want to email me:
But you are probably better emailing mk4me: