Who Should Teach?

Tonight at meeting, my director had two consultants with less than a year of experience do our training. To an extent, I have a problem with this. Don't get me wrong, I think it is great that they did different appointments lately. One did a lipstick class and the other did a spa class. I don't do many of those myself, so I'm open to hear how they work for others. With that said, I disagree with them being "in charge" of giving us promotion information if they don't understand what's written on the sheet of paper from our director.

This is where the misinformation began. My director wanted them to tell us that we are doing a promotion locally to have face models in a calendar that will be printed through Vista Print. We will choose 12 models. We did this last year in conjunction with the company's national contest "Model of Beauty." What the girls didn't realize was that there is no national contest this year. Now, I read InTouch just about daily. So, I thought this was inside info or something I had overlooked this week. I got really excited and sent out invitations to our event next week which is specifically focusing on our model contest. I thought it was also for a national contest that doesn't exist. Why? Because inexperienced people were talking about the promotions. They misread it. Since they were reading from a sheet of paper written by my director, I can only presume they know what they are reading. WRONG!

So, what are your thoughts? Directors, do you think it is appropriate for inexperienced consultants to lead the meeting? How long should they be in before they do this? Consultants, how do you feel if you have someone with less experience than you teaching you how to do your business? Do you think there are times when it is appropriate and times when the director should take over?

Here is what I think. I think if a consultant is new, but she has done something unconventional and had success with it, by all means she should share. I also think a new consultant that has been holding a lot of appointments can lead the skin care portion of meeting for guests. This way, the director is free to do the real training. The new consultant should NOT, however, talk about company or local contests or promotions as it is still overwhelming and she could get it wrong.

Here is what I think my director should have done (and believe me, she heard from me):

-Covered the details of this contest herself before splitting us apart.
-Have me or another consultant do the skin care for the guests and do the training herself (at one point it was becoming gripy and out of control)
-Only had the newbies talk about their respective experiences

Here are my general views (and I hope I'm making sense because it's late, but I gotta get it out) on the matter. Directors direct. They give the training, talk about contests and promotions, and make sure everyone is clear on what the rules are and whether it is LOCAL or NATIONAL or just our NSD promoting it. My director's director is very high D personality. I find more and more that I am, too. :P Who knew! I digress.

Consultants can teach on something specific. If Jane had a great spa class she should indeed be able to talk about it so we can learn from what she did. That is relevant. If Annie had large sales results from a silent hostess she did, let's hear all about it! If Linda did a lipstick class and sold tons of skin care, too; I want to know what she did. What they should NOT do is give out promo info impromptu without full understanding what it is.

When should consultants be given more responsibility? Should it be when they reach Red Jacket? Not if they did it in 2 months. Just because people are joining their team does not mean they are well read on what's going on. It means they are excited and exuding charisma. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but they are not ready to tell people with years more experience what is new in MK.

I don't like that if you aren't in a Red Jacket, it is as if you aren't working your business properly. There are people who have been in MK longer than I have who are not Red Jackets and they knew more than I know because they have been doing it longer. Just because someone is a Red Jacket (or has been one in the past) is not reason to have her acting as director.

My honest opinion is that in order to be qualified to "practice" being a director, one should meet one of two criteria (maybe three):

1. She should be driving free.
2. She should be DIQ (does it not make sense for someone who obviously has to lead to practice?)
3. She should be a Future Director (meaning she's probably driven free at some point and probably been a DIQ, too)

I think the reason you have a lot of misinformation in the first place is from people summarizing incorrectly; not understanding what they are reading in the first place, or just being plain bad communicators.

So, now, I will ask David's questions (he mentioned I bring these up when I told him what I was going to write about).

What, if anything can Mary Kay, Inc., Directors, and/or consultants do to combat the proliferation of misinformation? :D

Here are my thoughts:

Mary Kay, Inc. could perhaps require directors to streamline consultants they decide to put in charge. Make sure they understand what they are talking about. They could also make specific training requirements before advancements are awarded. For example: a Red Jacket must have 3 active recruits, but perhaps should do some type of written assessment on InTouch. If they don't pass, they don't advance. Just a brainstorm. They can get the commissions, but they can't get the jacket. The same goes for becoming a director. Experience is certainly required to be a director. There is way too much responsibility in that position for someone to breeze into it after just a few months in. Again, I'm brainstorming. These ideas may not even be realistic.

Directors would most likely hold the most responsibility in this situation. Because of the independent structure of our business, it needs to be up to directors to make sure their consultants have correct information and understand it well enough to convey it accurately to others. We are possibly the only Mary Kay someone may ever see. If we blow it, we've blown their impression of the entire company. First impressions are everything, you know?

Consultants need to read, read, read, read, and READ InTouch and other resources available to them. Miracles Happen, Mary Kay on People Management, Living a Rich Life, The Mary Kay Way, More than a Pink Cadillac are all books consultants should read. Mary Kay Ash's autobiography is like reading a training manual for how this business is designed to operate on the personal, regional, and national levels. Don't limit yourselves to Mary Kay books, though. There are a multitude of great business books out there.

Can we "fix" the problem?

Lookingforanswers made the following point recently:

"A rateMD.com 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.

Thoughts?