“Speaking of Amway, what are YOUR thoughts on…?”

GQ isn’t part of my staple reading diet, but every so often my personalized Google News feed pulls in a great story loaded with actionable insights. Last month, it was an article on the breakout of personal genomics, entitled, “The Book of Me.”

Today GQ published an article online on  four-star General David Petraeus, entitled, “Leader of the Year.” A key graph:

He starts by talking about his father, Sixtus Petraeus, who passed away six months ago at the age of 92. Petraeus couldn’t even leave Iraq to bury him. (As he puts it, “Our soldiers make all the same sacrifices.”) Sixtus was a Dutch sea captain who came to the U.S. at the start of World War II, “when Holland was overrun. He was at sea, and they couldn’t go back to Rotterdam, so they went to New York.” He was “a stubborn, independent Dutchman” who was both extraordinarily proud of his only son and a strict disciplinarian who pushed him to the limit. “I was raised by the kind of father who if his son could do twenty pull-ups, he wanted you to do twenty-one. There were, you know, no excuses. I mean, there was a phrase he actually used: ‘Results, boy.’ ” 

Later on in the article, writer Lisa DePaulo notes that the patterns of change experimented with and refined to success by Petraeus when he was running the 101 Airborne Division in Mosul in 2003, did not come from the top of the “theatre” or Pentagon command structure. They came from “the fringe,” or as Petraeus says:

“Well, I would sort of think it was intuitively obvious. To be truthful…strategic leaders make big decisions at times. And at my level, in the first year and very early on, a huge decision was to say, ‘We are going to do nation building.’ I know that we as a country didn’t think the military should get into nation building and all this. But very early on, we decided in the 101st that we’re gonna do it…” 

Those who have followed the Iraq war in depth — and not just through the superficial coverage in most of the press — will know that Petraeus was not popular with his “uplines” in the command structure for his views or for the successes he achieved in Mosul, even though he did it without “glory-seeking” or challenging the chain of command. ** 

After his outstandingly successful Mosul tour of duty was up, Petraeus was transferred by his superiors in the Pentagon command structure, back to a desk job for awhile (where he wrote a new Army field manual on counterinsurgency strategy), before being plucked out by President Bush to turn the war around.

That’s an oversimplified and truncated version of events, but the point is that Petraeus didn’t wait for those “smarter” than him, “more experienced” than him in the “same old same old” to tell him what to do, within his legitimate sphere of decision making and action taking.

As an aside, if you enjoy romances, writer Lisa DePaulo humorously shares how Petraeus met and courted his wife. DePaulo notes with supreme deadpan:

Perhaps the “wildest” thing was when he [young cadet Petraeus] ended up dating the daughter of the superintendent (who also happened to be a three-star, soon to be four-star general named William Knowlton) of West Point. Or “the Supe’s daughter,” as she was known. Knowlton was a man you didn’t want to mess with… 

SPEAKING OF AMWAY GLOBAL, have you thought about how real change — and as Petraeus puts it, “irreversible success,” — is going to come to your business? As Bridgett put it in a comment at IBOFB’s Amway Talk blog a couple days ago, change always happens at the fringes first.

** disclosure: one of my cousins served with the 101 Airborne in Mosul as an army doc for two years, which has added to the respect I have for Petraeus’ approach to modeling personal leadership and responsibility.

written by rdknyvr \\ tags: , 101 Airborne, Alticor, Amway Global, Amway Talk, Apple, David Petraeus, Google News, GQ, IBOFightback, Lisa DePaulo, West Point

Over on our friend IBOFightBack’s site Amway Talk there was some discussion earlier today regarding Demo’s sharing of an announcement from Pete Strydom (Amway Europe) of the apparently unknown new Managing Director of Amway UK and ROI, Andy Smith. Blogger ‘cmfitzg’ went fishing on the ‘net and found an interesting interview with another(???) Andy Smith, a UK goal setting motivational speaker.

The interview is excellent and I have reproduced parts of it, edited down to fit this space. Most Amway IBOs — whether “System” subscribers or “independents” — who have carefully reflected on the Rich DeVos “Building the Business” clips (here and here), or listened to and absorbed the classic speeches by Jay Van Andel and Rich on the Quixtar/Amway site will find these points familiar, but I thought they were still worth a fresh read.

*****

I [interviewer Gavin Ingham] have interviewed my good friend Andy Smith of Coaching Leaders about the power of goals and goal setting across your whole life not just your sales and business goals.

Q How will people benefit when they set goals?

Andy Smith Going for goals has an effect on our happiness levels. We are biologically hard-wired to feel happier if we have some sense of control and choice over our lives, which is what setting goals and taking action gives us. We change from feeling like victims of life’s circumstances, or at best passive consumers, into someone who knows they can make a difference. We are also learning along the way - even the mistakes we make, though they aren’t enjoyable at the time, will bring us valuable wisdom if we choose to learn from them.

Q Why is it that most people don’t set goals?

Andy Smith It requires a conscious effort to step off the hamster wheel and take some time to think about what’s important to you and where you want to get to. The best advice I’ve ever been given was “plan the time to plan” - set aside some protected time so that you can think about the future. This is equally important whether you’re working for yourself or in employment.

Q Is the old story that written goals are better than non-written goals true?

Andy Smith There’s a famous story about the “Yale Study” in which researchers asked Yale’s graduating class of 1953 how many of them had specific goals for their future in writing. Twenty years later, the 3% who had written goals had more personal wealth than the other 97% combined!

It’s a compelling story, it’s quoted by Tony Robbins, Brian Tracy and Zig Ziglar, plus legions of other motivational speakers and it sounds as if it ought to be true - but, alas, it never happened. You’ll never see an academic reference for it, Yale have no record of it, and when ‘Fast Company’ magazine investigated the origin of the story, Robbins’ people directed them to Brian Tracy, Tracy said he heard it from Zig Ziglar, and Ziglar’s people suggested the source might be Robbins!

It’s still a good idea to write your goals down though - it’s the best way to get clear about them and keep them in the forefront of your attention.

Q What sorts of goals should people set?

Andy Smith I would urge people to think big and set long-term goals that excite them, without worrying at first about how they are going to get there. It really is a shame when people limit their lives by telling themselves that what they really want isn’t realistic. The only way to find out what’s realistic is to go for it.

You also need short-term goals to aim at, to give you something that’s achievable and to give your unconscious mind some behavioural reinforcement when you achieve them. Psychologists have found (Ken Sheldon and Tim Kasser if you want to look them up) that people are happier when they achieve “vertical coherence” in their goal-setting - that is, when your higher-level and short-term goals are aligned so that achieving the intermediate goal takes you closer to the big one.
 
Q How should people go about setting goals?

Andy Smith First, get yourself into a positive emotional state by reviewing what’s already working in your life, what you like doing, what you’ve achieved already and what you’re proud of. This will help you find your direction, get you thinking more strategically, and also help you to feel like you deserve success.

Then clarify your values - what’s important to you - in the area of your life in which you want to set goals.

Only then, when you’re feeling good and you know what’s important to you, should you start thinking about specific goals that will satisfy your values. Get clear about what you want, get a clear sensory image of what it will look, sound and feel like, and set a specific date for it in your future.

Q What are your top 3 tips for successful goal setting?

Andy Smith Okay, the first one would have to be focus on what you want, not what you want to get away from. If you don’t know what you want, how will you know if you’re on the right track, or recognise when you’ve got there? It may sound a bit “cosmic ordering” to say that your unconscious mind attracts what you focus on, but it’s only another expression of that principle widely recognised in business that you are going to move in the direction of whatever targets you set. “Towards” motivation gives you a direction, it gets even stronger when you get close to achieving your goal, and you feel good when you have it. “Away from” motivation, by contrast, is undirected, it runs out when you get far enough from the thing you want to avoid, and it’s stressful.

Next, form a sensory image of your goal - what will you see, hear and feel when you have it? This is vital for motivation. Most people are familiar with the idea that goals should be SMART - specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timed - but you’ll notice there’s nothing in there about whether you care if you achieve them or not. Using your senses gives you that missing piece by providing something to engage your emotions.

Finally - put a date on your goal! Until you have put a date on your goal, it will keep getting pushed to the back of your queue of priorities. Even if you say “in a year’s time”, the goal will always remain a year ahead unless you turn that into a proper date.

Why? Your unconscious mind acts like a good and faithful servant, and it will do its best to give you whatever you ask it for. But it will always take the line of least resistance. If you don’t put a date on your goal, there will always be something more urgent to deal with. This is why important but non-urgent tasks tend to be neglected,

Q What pitfalls do people new to goal setting have to be careful of?

Andy Smith Three that I can think of straight away: firstly, not taking into account potentially unwanted knock-on effects of achieving the goal. If you don’t consider all the consequences of your goal - on your health, your family, your friendships, and the wider community - you may end up with something you don’t want. The smarter way to set goals is to take the consequences into account, allowing you to make changes to your goal and/or your route to achieving it. That way you stand a chance of getting the benefits of your goal while avoiding unwanted side effects.

Second, taking too much on and getting discouraged. It can be very easy to set a big, compelling goal – and then feel overwhelmed by the effort you think it will take to get there. The goal is so big, and so different from how things are now, that getting there by the deadline you have set will surely demand too much of you. And the more you think about the legwork it will take, the more discouraged you feel. The remedy is to break it down into smaller steps that feel more achievable, and recognise each step as an achievement. The key really is to get started - not necessarily to “take massive action”, but to take some action to get you going.

Finally - and this is the biggest pitfall of all - not knowing what you want. In the absence of some powerful external motivation, like getting yourself out of debt or meeting a deadline set by someone else, how do people motivate themselves to even think about what they want - as opposed to what they want to get away from? I’ve certainly had large periods of my life when I was more or less drifting. The way out of it is to think about what’s going well, what you are good at and what’s important to you - then it becomes easy to build a picture of where you want to go.

Q Is there anything else you would recommend people to do?

Andy Smith It’s one thing to read about goal-setting methods, but you really have to experience them in practice to get the best from them.

There’s a lot of interesting research on goals and motivation coming out of the Positive Psychology movement at the moment - you can keep up with it on my ‘Practical EQ’ blog. Why not get together with some of your friends and form an Achieve Your Goals group so you can support each other as you work through the exercises? Social support is a key component of goal achievement that makes it much easier for most of us - you don’t have to do it all by yourself! [hmmm… sounds suspiciously like a ’system’ to me!!!]

*****

SPEAKING OF AMWAY, the most intriguing insight above comes from the NLP research showing that it’s more powerful and effective to be positively motivated TOWARD something than negatively motivated AWAY from something.

For example, are you motivated primarily by a lower order (in the sense of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) ”negative” you want to escape or avoid, such as an unplanned for or underfinanced retirement? Or (in addition to prudently considering your future needs) are you more motivated by a higher order dream and desire to accomplish something majorly positive, such as being your own boss, running your own business, changing the way people view and take care of their health (Amway Wellness), or their looks, self-image and ultimately their self-worth (Amway Beauty)?

Your thoughts?

written by rdknyvr \\ tags: Amway Europe, Amway UK/ROI, AmwayBeauty, AmwayTalk, AmwayWellness, Andy Smith, Brian Tracy, Fast Company, goal setting, IBOFightback, Jay Van Andel, NLP, Pete Strydom, Positive Psychology, Rich DeVos, Tony Robbins, verrtical coherence, Yale Study, Zig Zilgar

Do you  remember where you  were when…

* you had your first soft icecream cone?

* you realized that Santa wasn’t true?

* that “success” comes AFTER “work” in the dictionary?

* the day our favorite blog commentator launched her own blog?

You read it here first, unless you also subscribe to Dave Robison’s blog ( www.ontheroadwithdave.com/ ) – thanks for the tip, Dave!

Welcome to Bridgett, one of the most insightful, witty, thoughtful, passionate (in the Italian sense) commentators on the Amway Quixtar scene. And busy mother, wife, Quixtar business owner, etc., etc.

Be sure to go over and say ‘hi’ to Bridgett asap at this link:

http://www.bridgettbridgett.blogspot.com/

written by rdknyvr

You can download the pdf of Mr. Justice Norris’ well-written 69 page decision in the case of Amway v. BERR (UK) at www.amwaywiki.com . [On the home page, go to “Facts, Myths and Controversies” and click on “Controversies.” Under “Current” click on “BERR v Amway UK.” The pdf of the Final Judgement is at the bottom of the article under “Court Documents.”]

It is highly relevant to Chuck’s current series on transparency and change. If you have any comments to make, kindly make them NOT HERE, but just below in Chuck’s last post and in response to the questions he has already posed there.

I would just quickly note my view that Mr. Justice Norris has done Amway a huge service, not only in approving them to continue business in the UK under their revised business model, but by incisively discussing and dissecting the inadequacies of the past — both Amway UK and the Systems – thereby driving a legal stake in the ground which will be a benchmark for Amway Global around the world as well as all other direct sales companies — and for any other legal reviews of the business model. As Alticor said last May at the Amway Blog, “never again.” And one would also have to observe that the business landscape for Systems has also changed radically.

Comments below in Chuck’s post, please.

written by rdknyvr \\ tags: Amway, Amway v BERR, amwaywiki, BERR, business landscape, Mr. Justice Norris, Transparency, UK

“This good news [about the UK market]…sends a clear message about how we need to be operating in every market. The ruling emphasizes the importance of openness, honesty, and transparency in all we do. It reinforces how critical it is that we enforce our rules and demand high standards of ourselves and everyone who represents this business. And that’s what our business transformation here is all about.” — STEVE LIEBERMAN, Managing Director, Quixtar, posting on the Ada-tudes Blog, May 14, 2008

If we were trying to cast a vision of a truly open, honest, and transparent Amway Global on every level — company, IBOs, tool systems – how would we express that vision?  What would the business look like?  What would the business sound like?  How would it feel to the new prospect?  How would it be experienced by the new customer? 

As you can see in the above excerpt from Steve Lieberman’s recent blog post, the corporation says it is committed to those values.  Believing that to be true, if they were truly implemented, how might we notice it in the business?  And in light of those values, what would we want the business to sound and look like as a practical matter?  What do we mean when we say “open,” “honest,” and “transparent?”  Better still, what does Steve Lieberman (and indirectly Amway Global) mean when he (it) says those words?  Are our definitions and meanings congruent?  Or is there a disparity between us?

How “open” do we want to be?  How “honest?”  How ‘transparent?”  What are the parameters of our openness, honesty, and transparency?  Across the board — or only when it suits our corporate or tool system public relations goals?

I’m interested in your feedback.  But to get the conversation going, allow me to offer two relatively simple areas where I believe these values could be better expressed.

Currently once an IBO reaches a particular level in the business he is given the title that goes with his level — Sapphire, Emerald, Diamond, etc. — and they are apparently free to use that title permanently.  Yet there are dozens of those same IBOs who have not requalified at those levels for years, some for even more than a decade.  Some are nowhere near their former level.  However, they continue to be presented on stages around the world as being at those levels.  The most recent 2007 Achievers magazine showed that in some LOAs more than one-third of the IBO leadership promoted on the LOA’s website did not qualify as Q-12.  Some formerly qualified Emeralds and Diamonds are now little more than Platinums in their home market and have not broken a new Platinum leg in years.  Yet they continue to teach from stages about how to build the business, even though they have not built the business themselves in years — and have no experience in successfully building the business in the internet age.  Is allowing them to continue to hold their business title and to speak from stage today with the credibility that goes with that pin level “open, honest, and transparent?”  Or would it be more open, honest, and transparent to insist that all those who speak from stage should be introduced at their current actual level in the business, particularly in their home market?  

A second example.  Many of the issues that have created serious challenges for the company around the world have arisen because of less than robust monitoring by the company of business activities by IBOs and tool systems.  The most recent TEAM and UK situations come immediately to mind.  This past year the company announced it is going to work more closely with LOAs and their Platinums.  Q/AG Sales Advisors will be out in the field interacting on a regular basis with Platinums and above to develop a more partnership-like relationship.  This is a terrific step — but it has one weakness.  While the company said it would be working more closely with the field, it also said it would not be looking over anyone’s shoulder, it would let the Platinums know in advance when they were coming into town.  

Now I have been outside a meeting and personally heard an Emerald say “the company wants us to say….., but I am not willing to say that.”  Several times I’ve been at a Business Overview presentation and said to myself halfway through, “If someone from Quixtar Rules saw this business overview they would have a complete meltdown.”  I assure you, however, that if that same Emerald or Overview presenter thought there was a possibility that someone from Q/AG or the Rules Dept. might be around or in the audience it would have been a much different overview — and likely much more in line with the company’s rules and guidelines.  

As Ronald Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.”  We don’t need an atmosphere of Big Brother in the business, but we don’t need an atmosphere of laissez-faire either.  The last decade of nonsense on many fronts should have made that clear to everyone.  Having the Sales Advisor announce in advance everytime he or she is coming into town is akin to Major League Baseball telling a major league baseball player exactly when his next five “random” drug tests are scheduled for the next year.  That’s complete foolishness.  It is no less foolish in Q/AG.  There needs to be more balance in the process if Q/AG is going to have the kind of honesty, openness, and transparency in the business it says it desires.

In Steve Lieberman’s excerpt I quoted above he stated that the UK ruling “reinforces how critical it is that we enforce our rules and demand high standards of ourselves and everyone who represents this business.”  I agree.  However, I’d add that a critical aspect of that process is Q/AG being more proactively aware of what is going on in the field, not in a heavy-handed manner, but from a mindset that says ”this is important for the well-being, stability, and profitability of the company’s business long-term — and yours as well.”  Everyone would benefit from a reasonable accountability process that encouraged honesty and transparency in the marketplace.

What are YOUR thoughts on how we could cast a vision for openness, honesty, and transparency in Amway Global?

written by Chuck Lia \\ tags: Amway Global, honesty, openness, Steve Lieberman, Transparency

“You don’t want a capital market that functions perfectly if you’re in my business.” –WARREN BUFFETT, CEO, Berkshire Hathaway, April 2008 in Fortune magazine

“I am your idea. How far can I take you?” — Tag line in an ad for a consulting firm

“You gotta wanna.” – JIMMY PATTISON, Canadian multibillionaire who started out as a boy with a paper route and mowing lawns

How many somewhat active Quixtar IBOs are there? 

How many?  No one really knows for sure, but 250,000 is my guesstimate.  A couple of years ago, Doug DeVos (Doug “the Fox” according to Kia’s blog) went on record congratulating the approximately 280,000 Quixtar IBOs who earned a bonus in the prior year. That included anyone from a 60 FAA Crown Ambassador down to an IBO who did 100PV for one month that year. And that’s out of a purported 800,000 IBOs then registered in the business.  Now we won’t use this space to delve deeply into what the other 520,000 IBOs were doing that year, but we did learn last September that about half of all IBOs never place an order after they register — which makes it quite difficult to earn a bonus.

So back to our number.  Is 250,000 IBOs a Big number or a Small number?  I’m assuming (hopefully accurately) that since Quixtar was said to have given MonaVie a list of 31,000 ex-IBO names to check against recent registrations that this represented the approximate number of IBOs who left or resigned with TEAM, which is how I get from Doug’s 280K to 250K.  Now just to play around with that number a bit, it turns out that 250,000 IBOs are less than eight one-hundredths of one percent of the population of North America, assuming a NA population of 330,000,000 (Canada and US combined).  And if the total number of IBOs involved with Quixtar was perhaps as many as 800,000 (whatever that means, given ordering behavior), that would be about two tenths of one percent of the North American population. And on those numbers, Quixtar generates a little over $1 billion in annual revenue.

Are those big numbers or small numbers?

A new network marketing company launched in North America relatively recently – Arbonne Cosmetics. As of late 2006 they had 1.4 million distributors in the US and Canada (including, probably, those who are active business builders and those who just want the better discount). Is that a big number or a small number?

In 2005, Avon under the leadership of CEO Andrea Jung, went through a reorganization and reevaluation of priorities (ie. a Transformation process). Since then, Avon’s global revenues have grown from around $8 billion to over $10 billion, and without a stake in the China market.  Is that growth rate a big number or a small number?

In the time since Doug DeVos’ statement, Quixtar has made some terrific — almost golden — moves to reinvent our business model and how we do business. If you’ve been paying attention, new product development has been organized around three main business foci: Nutrilite/Health, Artistry, and Ribbon. Quixtar University and other incentive initiatives including increased bonuses have brought a fresh focus to IBOs developing First Circle non-IBO customers as the key revenue growth opportunity for a healthy business. And Accreditation has begun the multi-year process of rebalancing the putative conflicts of interest into which many have suggested some of the motivational systems (LOAs) have drifted (system business profitability vs. sustainable Quixtar growth).

And if we add to those positive developments the opportunities in Personalized Health — with Gensona DNA tests, league-of-their-own Nutrilite nutrigenomic supplements and an online, an almost ”artificial intelligence” expert system Health Questionnaire – then it’s no stretch of the truth at all to declare that these unquestionably put Quixtar in a league of its own in the preventive health market space.  And sitting on top of that league means that Quixtar now offers IBOs a wild-ride-growth-potential which no other company can come close to matching.  Not one.

Yet some IBOs (and ex-IBOs) are fence-sitting, proclaiming that they must wait for more evidence of sustainable change, or wait until the last detail is attended to and the last farthing paid before they will proceed (or re-register) to start building their businesses. Several IBOs have blogged that they will build once “the systems are fixed” (paraphrasing). Others blogging here and over at IBOFightBack’s excellent site declare that anyone building to Platinum or beyond is in mortal danger of having the company capriciously knock them down (apparently for no good reason) and destroy their businesses via a now void dispute resolution mechanism, so why bother building at all? Some current and former IBOs hold on to past hurts and disillusionments based on system experiences and don’t “trust” enough to start building anew, with or without the support of a system, and one can certainly empathize, to a degree, with their position.

While I respect their right to hold their views, especially since those views are rooted in their personal experiences, it’s almost as though some have, I would respectfully and reflectively suggest, a glass ceiling in their thinking – that even while they critique the systems, they mentally hold a belief that there is no other way.

In contrast, the best quote of the past couple of weeks on this blog came from a relatively new IBO who posted,

“…we only have one lifetime here on Earth. I don’t have time to wait for every single “T” to be crossed and “i” dotted before I take action to achieve my dreams. I understand that there are aspects about the business that can be improved on. But I need a certain amount of extra income, a certain amount of extra time, and a certain level of health to achieve my goals. I can get these things with a business powered by Quixtar…” (AJ Gannon)

That is a perspective worth reflecting on, and worthy of a thoughtful response. 

But what if IBOs who have concerns were to consider building their businesses independent of the motivational systems?  What if they were to begin using the excellent selling framework training offered by Quixtar University and the outstanding sales kits developed by Quixtar’s training and communications specialists in close consultation with successful, experienced IBOs?  Or what if they selectively and purposefully used motivation and training support from their LOA systems as they determined their need for it – just as Quixtar recommends?  Or, what if the many, many other IBOs who are achieving business and personal growth success utilizing the training provided by their systems and Quixtar University (as many systems recommend) continued to build using their system’s approach? 

Is there not room in the business for all of these approaches?

And what if some IBOs, in doing their own market research identified opportunities and fresh ways of approaching their markets using the outstanding new product and training investments Alticor has made — without waiting for a system to tell them what to do? What if some people started to think independently, using their God-given reasoning, talents, and imagination, all the while working within the guidelines of the Business Compendium?

Is that really a problem for anyone?

That’s what hit me with the Warren Buffett quote – opportunities are most abundant when things are imperfect.  It is the existence of imperfections in the market, including business procedures, which provide the new opportunities for break-out business growth.

That leads us to Jimmy Pattison’s motto: “You Gotta Wanna.”

Or to put his quote another way, it comes down to having a driving “need” vs. a Christmas “wish” for the independence that a successful business can bring.  According to Robert Kiyosaki, only when net positive income from investments in cashflow-generating assets exceeds expenses are you financially independent.  Not necessarily ‘wealthy’ or a ‘millionaire’ or a ‘Diamond’, but financially independent.  Are you there yet?  I’m not, that’s why I am building this business today.  Perhaps you believe the job or position you hold is so secure and comfortable (btw, nothing wrong with a good job, I’m not criticizing that) that you can justify taking no action while waiting for independent business nirvana to arrive.  But is that really the reason why you don’t take action today? 

So back to the original question:  “Is 250K a BIG number or a SMALL number?” 

By now the perceptive and self-aware reader will have realized that that is not the real question behind this post.   The real question regards how each of us perceives the opportunity landscape ahead of us – what our vision for the future is and whether that vision is strong enough to motivate us to take appropriate action.

What are YOUR thoughts about this number?  How do you perceive the opportunity landscape in front of YOU? And do you agree or disagree that ‘a time of imperfections’ is also THE TIME of greatest opportunity?

written by rdknyvr \\ tags: AJ Gannon, Andrea Jung, Arbonne, Artistry, Avon, Doug DeVos, Gensona, Jimmy Pattison, Nutrilite, Personalized Health, Quixtar, Quixtar University, Ribbon, Robert Kiyosaki, Warren Buffett

“The ancient Romans had a tradition:  whenever one of their engineers constructed an arch, as the capstone was raised into place, the engineer assumed accountability for his work in the most profound way possible:  he stood under the arch.” – MICHAEL ARMSTRONG

“Trust, but verify.” – RONALD REAGAN

PROVEN:  To establish the truth or genuineness of by evidence or argument.  – synonyms:  demonstrate, confirm, substantiate, verify

NOTE:  Please stay on topic with this post.  If you just want to rehash the same pro- and con- tool system arguments ad nauseum please do not waste your time and energy commenting on this post because I will delete your comments.  I am interested in one issue only on this post, how to bring a high level of honesty and transparency to the effectiveness of tool systems (not their income distribution).  I am interested in your ideas about how we as IBOs believe that specific issue could best be accomplished.  I intend to maintain the narrow focus of this post and will take all steps necessary to make sure that occurs.  All roads on this blog do not lead to Rome (read “tool system income” issues). 

What do you think tool system leaders mean when they say that their tool system is “proven?”  What does it mean to you as a field IBO when you hear them say that?  Would you like it to mean something different than you believe it means today? 

There is a somewhat (with a strong emphasis on “somewhat”) synergistic relationship today between Amway/Quixtar and the tool systems.  (I do realize the relationship is somewhat contentious as well.)  Our upline’s tool system is shown on our Quixtar opening web page after we sign onto the Quixtar site, which clearly highlights the fact that the two institutions work together on some level.  In virtually every plan shown to prospective IBOs, mention is made of the fact that IBO leaders earn income from the sales of Business Support Materials and for speaking at functions in addition to their Amway/Quixtar business income.  So even though the primary business being presented is A/Q, it is obvious (on some level, not fully or completely in my opinion) that income is also earned by IBO leaders through the sales of BSMs, function tickets, and speaking at functions.

However, there is one substantial difference.  A/Q is required to make disclosures about the performance of IBOs in its business, but tool systems are not required to make any disclosures about the performance of IBOs on their particular system.  Now I realize a strong point could be made that the A/Q business required disclosures don’t offer an accurate portrayal of the companies’ performance, particularly in their definition of an “active” IBO.  A more in depth discussion of that issue would be worthwhile in my opinion and should be a topic for discussion down the road.  (How could A/Q more accurately disclose the performance and earnings of the IBOs in its business?)  That discussion aside however, is there a compelling reason to ask tool systems to disclose on some reasonable level how IBOs are performing on their system?

I think there is. 

IBOs are asked and encouraged to invest in their businesses so they can acquire the knowledge and expertise necessary to build their businesses.  New and old IBOs alike are often told that “no one who is not on the system has ever built a large business.”  The obvious follow-up question is:  How exactly then are IBOs that are on the system doing?  You see, a “proven” tool system to me is not one that has “proven” it can promote the tool system so well that it has been able to sell large amounts of tools and draw large numbers of IBOs to its functions.  A “proven” tool system to me is one that can clearly demonstrate that a reasonable percentage of IBOs on its system have been able to qualify for and maintain particular levels in the business, while also becoming appropriately profitable along the way for their level of business achievement.  “Reasonable percentage” might be up for discussion, but I will say 1% would not meet my criteria. 

Some worthwhile questions worth answering and disclosing might be, “Of the non-Platinum IBOs on your system’s CEP for more than six months last year, how many made Platinum this year?”  Or, “Of the IBOs on your system who made Platinum (or Sapphire, Emerald, Diamond) last year, how many requalified or moved up a level or sponsored a new Platinum this year?”  Another would be, “Are all of the IBO leaders being introduced and allowed to speak from your stages accurately representing their current business level?”  For a system to be “proven” it would have to demonstrate to me that its leaders’ businesses were stable and had longevity — not just here one year and gone the next.  I personally believe that all systems should have to disclose the current pin level of any IBO leader allowed to speak at its functions.  I might not give the same credence to a “Diamond” that was really only a Sapphire today and hadn’t broken a new leg in five years, versus an Emerald who has broken a leg every year for the past three years.  But how would I know that if the systems are free to misrepresent or not even disclose the actual current business level of the speaker?  There are errors of commission in business, but there are also errors of omission.  This falls in the category of the latter.   

If systems are going to use the phrase “proven tool system,” shouldn’t they have to “prove” it on some level?  I think so.  If not, the phrase is nothing more than meaningless drivel, hype, and spin.  And if they are going to be allowed to work in partnership with Amway/Quixtar, shouldn’t they be held to a somewhat similar level of accountability?   

In the Book of Acts in the New Testament the Bereans were commended by the Apostle Luke because whenever they were taught or told something by their spiritual leaders they were “more fair-minded” and “searched the Scriptures daily to determine whether these things were really so.”  (Acts 17:11)  It’s interesting that the Bereans were called “fair-minded” because they believed it was important for them to clarify whether something was true or not.  That often doesn’t seem to be the case in this online dialogue.  Those of us who ask for more transparency and proof are often called by IBO leaders “critics who should find better things to do with our time,” even though I am in completely in favor of tool systems — but within the constraints of full transparency.  I have even had the word “enemy” used to describe what I am now because of what I do with this blog online.  That’s amazing really.  But the Bereans didn’t blindly follow anyone or any way of thinking, they verified everything — and were honored themselves for perpetuity in Scripture for doing so.

I think IBOs should be “fair-minded” as well, and take a lesson from the Bereans and request enough information to verify whether the things they have been told by their upline tool systems ”are really so.”  The resultant transparency, knowledge, and understanding would give IBOs a better sense of how to invest wisely in building their businesses — something Bridgett speaks so well to on these blogs — and hold systems responsible on some level to make sure that their tool offerings and functions deliver what they say they deliver:  “a proven way to build an Amway/Quixtar business.” 

What are YOUR thoughts on whether, and/or how, tool systems should “prove” their effectiveness?

written by Chuck Lia \\ tags: Amway, Quixtar, tool systems, Transparency

HONESTY AND TRANSPARENCY REQUIRE FULL DISCLOSURE BY AMWAY GLOBAL 

Recently Team Nutrilite signed the remarkable Brazilian soccer — I mean ”‘futbol” — superstar, Ronaldinho as one of its spokespersons.  (Have you seen some of his amazing You Tube videos?!)  In several of the press releases announcing his signing Nutrilite delineated his past individual and team achievements.  The same was true when Nutrilite announced its other spokesperson/athletes:  Powell, Xiang, Stuczynski, Reece, and Richards.  In each case the athlete’s past and present achievements were touted to the Amway Global family, the media, and the world.  If Ronaldinho was the Player of the Year for a particular year, that year was disclosed.  Ronaldinho was not announced as the FIFA World Player of the Year, but as the FIFA World Player of the Year for 2004 and 2005 and the FIFPro World Player of the Year 2005 and 2006.  He was not announced as the FIFPro Player of the Year for 2007 because that year the award’s recipient was another Brazilian, Kaka, of the A.C. Milan team.  The same approach is taken when it comes to players in the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL.  When players in these leagues earn various individual or team awards or achieve performance milestones they are always attached to the year they were awarded or achieved.  

So what does all of this background information have to do with enhancing honesty and transparency in Amway Global?

When IBOs achieve particular levels in this business they also earn the title that goes with that achievement:  Platinum, Sapphire, Emerald, Diamond, Executive Diamond, the list goes on.  One serious challenge as I see it is that years after initially achieving a level, they still carry the title that goes with that level (unless they’ve moved up a pin).  However, outside of their upline, almost no one knows what their current business level is, whether they have requalified at that level in the business or not.  Often, they haven’t. 

This creates a dilemma, one that I believe has moral implications.  We have numerous IBOs who still move about in the business with the prestige, honor, respect that goes with the title ”Emerald” and “Diamond” who have not requalified at that level since the first time they achieved that level or for several years.  In more cases than Amway Global or the tool systems would like to admit we have ”Diamond” IBOs who have not requalified as Diamonds for years (for a decade or more in some cases), or even as Emeralds for that matter.  Some haven’t even qualified for the Achievers Conference.  Yet they continue to be announced as “Diamonds” and allowed to speak on system stages as active, top performing business leaders.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of IBOs have no idea some of these so-called “Diamonds” may not currently have a business remotely resembling a Diamond business in terms of number of front line Platinums, active IBOs, or product volume.  The same is true of Emeralds, EDCs, and Crowns.  Yet “Diamonds” who have not broken a front line Platinum in their home market for years are put on stages around the world to tell you how you too can reach their level in the business.  The simple truth, however, is that if all the facts were known, you may already be at or near their current level!    

In years past Amway changed the design from time to time of the pins awarded at various levels.  When you requalified you earned the newly designed pin for your new level of success.  I kind of view that approach as passive/aggressive corporate persuasion.  If your business isn’t growing, people will soon know by your “old” pin.

I believe there is a better way.  An approach that is far more honest and transparent and less subject to manipulation and misrepresentation by tool systems and business leaders.  That approach?  Full disclosure.

I believe Amway Global should publish every year in each market, as well as online showing all markets, the names of the IBOs who qualified at every recognized level above Platinum in the business, including Achievers qualifiers, earned FAA points, and related QBI type criteria.  Perhaps the company could also disclose in parentheses behind each Platinum IBO listed the number of front line, newly qualified Platinums each Platinum sponsored that year.  

Allowing IBO “leaders” to represent themselves as being at business pin levels they no longer qualify for is, at best, misleading, and, at worse, full-fledged deceit.  It is comparable to allowing Muhammad Ali present himself as the “Heavyweight Champion of the World.”  He once was the heavyweight champion, but he isn’t today.  Today he is the former heavyweight champion.  Or its similar to having the Phoenix Suns’ Shaquille O’Neal present himself as an expert on how to shoot free throws.  Someone like O’Neal, who has never shot much better than 50% from the free throw line, has little to offer any basketball player about how to shoot free throws well (even though he no doubt would have a lot to offer speaking about basketball in general).  And an IBO leader who developed his last front line Platinum ten years ago likely has little to offer IBOs on the nuances of how to build the business in the internet age.  More than likely, absent some personal reason for not building, if he really knew how to build the business today, he would be doing it.

I am not saying an IBO leader would not have anything worthwhile to say to IBOs about the Amway/Quixtar business.  He or she might have a lot to offer on issues of attitude, life coaching, and much more.  But that doesn’t diminish the proposition that his/her actual current business pin level should be known by those in any audience that leader speaks to.  Anything less borders on misrepresentation.  The more the audience knows about the speaker and his business and his level of business growth the better their understanding of how much credibility to give to what the leader has to say.

In the same way that a quick perusal of the sports pages can tell us how our favorite professional athletes are performing this year, Amway Global can help all IBOs know how well our favorite IBO leaders have been performing of late as well.  Full disclosure by Amway Global regarding its IBO leaders’ qualified pin levels is a great place to start.  In addition, Amway Global should not allow any IBO to represent him- or herself at any business function as being at any busness level other than his/her currently qualified pin level based on the last fiscal/QBI year.

What are your thoughts on how Amway Global could enhance its honesty and transparency in the achievement and recognition areas? 

written by Chuck Lia