Don’t shoot the messenger.

That’s long been my motto.  Even when things get so messed up and compromise your sense of well-being and your right to a remedy   – never shoot the messenger.  The messenger is often a very good person who has to figure out a way to sweeten bitter news.

I found two worthy messengers in the midst of my ING Direct debacle http://thethinpinkline.com/2010/02/04/banked-but-busted/ where a simple money transaction became a complicated and protracted ordeal that compromised a very important and time sensitive transfer of funds.   I want to thank these messengers publicly for not only doing their job but doing it well with a sense of personal commitment that made their professional credentials in financial services even more impressive:  Erica Borsella, the ING representative who stepped in to handle my situation from a supervisory level and Cathy MacFarlane, ING Direct Corporate Relations who, when notified by me with an email detailing the timeline and mistakes made - responded on behalf of the company.  Both made it clear that I had done nothing wrong – in fact, that I’d done a responsible job as a customer – but was the victim of an unfortunate circumstance:  an inadequately trained ING representative who gave me wrong information.

Though neither Borsella nor MacFarlane could ”fix” what happened to me, both provided an often forgotten asset called the human touch.  MacFarlane consented for me to share her email in full: 

Dear Valerie:

When I finished reading your timeline and blog I found myself feeling an overwhelming respect for the level headed and patient manner in which you dealt with a series of unintended and undesired events and total admiration that despite being jet lagged and tired, you posted a beautifully written, concise and very logically detailed blog at 3:33 a.m.!! As someone who’s ‘filters’ fall away when I’m tired, I definitely need to take a lesson from you. 

First, I have to say that your experience with ING DIRECT distresses me.  I assure you that as a bank and as a culture Erica Borsella (who tried to assist you in correcting the issue) is the norm and not the exception. Unfortunately, the entirety of the problems started with what you so aptly called “an inadequately trained associate.” 

I appreciate your thoughtful posting and there are several lessons we can take from your unfortunate experience so we can try to ensure that all our customers have positive experiences. We need to ask our customers for the facts – and all the facts – and then explain the way the system and its features work. Indeed, a P2P (person to person) payment with the recipient’s bank account and routing number would have arrived in two days.  Minus the necessary details (recipient’s bank account and routing number) the payment ‘could’ become a paper check and take 5–7 business days as it travels snail mail. The new training contains simple steps – hopefully it will prevent customer pain! 

Valerie, on behalf of the bank I want to thank you again for your patience and extraordinary understanding. You helped us see a point of weakness and we’re correcting it.

Please feel free to contact me at any time with suggestions for ensuring we maintain a brand that deserves people’s trust.

Best regards,

Cathy MacFarlane

As I so often write in my blog:  It’s your money so take it personally.  I just wanted each of you to know that I practice what I preach.  It was my money that was needed for a major project – my book “Mind Over Money Matters”.  It details the mindset individuals and families need in order to recover from the recession - and is being published this summer by Sterling and Ross Publishers, New York.  The transfer of those funds were compromised and I took that personally. 

I hope the detailing of my banked but busted experience will help each of you know that we do have a voice and can effect change (even if not for our own particular circumstance).  What helped me most is that I kept good records:  names, dates and times and followed through.  And along the way found two messengers who appreciated my attention to detail and the opportunity for their company to learn how to better assist customers.

And despite automated emails I continue to receive declaring that I “haven’t yet activated” my ING Electric Orange card – I’m not going to.   As my 3-year old granddaughter Savannah would declare:  “No way!  The memory of the botched transfer experience won’t allow me to do that.  I remain an ING Direct Orange Savings customer.  It has worked seamlessly for me.  But the “banked but busted” debacle is why I see red when it comes to ING Electric Orange.  

Here’s to your health and wealth.

TAGS: Customer service, Rant

How long do you sit and wait for an interviewer who is late? Last week, I friend of mine went for an interview. He was politely greeted and escorted into a conference room, isolated from the main work area and unable to see what was going on outside. After fifteen minutes, the interviewer’s admin popped her head in to say that the boss had been delayed but would be right in. After another ten minutes (my friend had decided to leave on the thirty minute mark), the interviewer arrived, apologizing profusely and explaining that a client emergency had tied him up. My friend said he seemed sincere and the interview went well.

I’m sure we’re all struggled with the question of how long to wait for someone who’s late – a client, a colleague, friend. It’s a particular hot button for me since I made a point to arrive on time for appointments. I always factor in time to deal with the unexpected traffic or other things that can cause derailments (I even take the flight earlier than the one that should me there in plenty of time!). Of course, there is no right answer, it all depends on the situation. Yet, the “rule” that sticks with me is the one left over from college – that students only had to wait fifteen minutes for the tardy professor before the class was considered canceled. I think that the question of how long to wait for an interviewer can be handled the same way you’d handle anyone who keeps you waiting.

Some guidelines that may be helpful:

• Is nature throwing curve-balls? While people can (and should) mange bad weather, they often don’t. I tend to cut them some slack when the weather is inclement.
• Did she get you a message? It’s smart to include your cell phone/blackberry/voicemail contact information when you are confirming the meeting so that the other person is able to get you a message advising you of the delay. If you’ve done that and she hasn’t communicated with you, it might be that the delay is a test of your patience or a power tactic.
• How long is the delay? Each of us has to decide how long is long enough. I tend tie my decision to the purpose of the meeting and my schedule for the rest of the day.
• When he gets there, does he apologize? The apology is obligatory, if he doesn’t offer one, it is a red flag – here’s someone who doesn’t value your time.
• How sincere is the apology? The other red flag is a poor apology; it speaks to the person’s character.

Readers, what would you add?

TAGS: Interview skills, Job hunting, Job Search, LinkedIn

What do you do when you are banked – but busted because of the system? 

RANT!  Then get a plan and find a fix.  

It just happened to me and despite my healthy neurosis regarding all things money (aka knowing most of the rules and always having a financial backup plan) – the system held me and my money captive. 

It was a simple request on January 21st:  I needed to move a chunk of money from my longtime ING Direct Orange Savings account to my Chase checking account to provide money for phase two of a very important project.  Usually the process of transferring my money from savings to checking is one I do by myself, seamlessly, online since my savings account is linked to my checking account.  But in this particular case, the funds needed to be disbursed and received within a few days – so I called ING directly to see if the process could be expedited. 

The ING representative suggested with confidence that my needs could be better served if I opened an ING Electric Orange Account that would – within 2 to 3 business days – have the funds electronically transferred into the project company’s bank account.  I’m a problem/resolve kind of person.  The solution was set and the process completed online with the ING representative.  That was January 21^st.  

A week later – still no deposit.   

The ING representative had made a mistake.  And the only way I knew that was the case is when the project manager called to say:  “Nothing’s been received.  Could you check with ING?”  This by the way was after I’d received an email from ING confirming the transfer had been made. 

Here’s the rest of the story. 

The funds couldn’t be transferred electronically to the project company’s bank account because – oops “ING doesn’t have an electronic connection/capability to all businesses”.  OK.  I’m a logical person.  I understand that though we’re a nano second, wired, advanced technology world – not everything can be connected that way.  But here’s the rub.  ING opted to send a paper check through the United States Postal Service mail.  No, not by certified mail.  No, not by registered mail.  By regular mail with a 44-cent stamp and no ability to track it.   Even more insulting and adding insult to injury – ING never contacted me to tell me the problem.  ING never asked me if they could send a paper check.  ING made a decision about my money and a transaction that I needed done in a timely expedient manner.  ING didn’t deliver.  And the real irritation is that I could have employed another option to get money to the project on time – if I’d known there was a problem – with my money, going to my project manager who’s the one who became the victim of circumstances neither he nor I created.

I won’t bore you with the litany of the many phone calls, emails and conference call conversations (ING, me and my project manager) – I’ll just rant directly to the conclusion.  

Financial institutions are working over time to stay ahead of their customer needs in the midst of tight margins and threatened restrictions by the Fed.  To manage the tight money margins, financial institutions are changing rules fast.  Fees for banking services are going up; some are being allegedly eliminated; services that customers didn’t have to pay before are now being charged; lines of credit are being narrowed and interest rates are poised to punish if you don’t keep an eye out for change notices. 

And I believe the rules are changing so fast that ING and other financial services institutions’ own people can’t keep up!  That’s when we consumers/customers pay the price for the banking system’s bureaucracy which in my current frame of mind feels a lot like a shell game. 

ING has reviewed the initial call I made January 21^st and has confirmed:  “It wasn’t your fault, Valerie.  Our representative gave you incorrect information and is in the process of being retrained.”  They made a $25 gift deposit into my account for my troubles.  

In between the admission of an inadequately trained representative having botched up my request and the $25 apology, a very deliberate, experienced and empathetic supervisor has been working on my situation since January 26^th.  We’re on a first name basis and speak daily.  She stopped payment on the paper check which was still floating around in the postal system somewhere and untraceable.  The ING system meantime still requires a standard two business days to return my money to my account even though it was their mistake.  She is monitoring when the returned money hits my account and will immediately wire it (though ING protocols don’t usually allow wires) to my project manager’s account. 

That was the situation until Monday when the money was finally returned to my account.  How was the situation resolved?  I’ll tell you the conclusion another time.  I’m just off a late flight back home from travel and jet lagged.  Suffice it to say – not soon enough or well enough.  But I’m smarter and learned a lot.  There’s my story.  Hopefully a rant with a purpose and message for you.  Be sure to really mind over your money matters.  These days when it comes to your money, check and double check the rules because a policy or procedure yesterday may not be in play today or anymore.

 Here’s to you health and wealth.

TAGS: banking procedures, Rant

I’ve had a couple experiences recently that reminded me just how wrong networking can go.  The situations below are related to business development but the same principles apply to networking for jobs or career advice or  for any other purpose.

Situation #1: A woman to whom I was introduced at an event a few weeks ago by a mutual acquaintance followed up with an email suggesting a follow-up meeting. Her client base overlaps with mine so it seemed as though we might be able to help one another. So far, so good. We agreed to a date, place and time and she promised to confirm the day before. She didn’t, so I did. I arrived at the meeting place on time. She emailed three minutes before we were scheduled to meet that she was delayed ─ she finally arrived twenty minutes later. It was clear from the questions she asked that she had done no homework to understand what it is that I do. The last straw was when she asked me if I had ever met the woman who had introduced us at the event! The chances that I would even consider referring my clients to her evaporated – what would make me think she would treat them any differently than she treated me?

Situation #2: Another woman I met briefly at a different event (let’s call her Laura) is a money manager. She told me she often hires speakers for events she holds for her clients. Laura followed up by asking a colleague of hers (let’s call her Gail) to schedule a lunch meeting for the three of us to discuss a possible speaking engagement. Gail and I agreed to a date but then she called to reschedule it because Laura wasn’t available ─ twice! The long postponed meeting day finally arrived; Gail called that morning to explain that while Laura would not be able to join us, another person in the group was available and that I would enjoy meeting her. While the food and ambiance at lunch was lovely, the conversation was strained. Why? It became clear early on that the purpose of the lunch was for them to solicit my business. I abhor a “bait and switch” maneuver. On top of that, the newcomer had no social skills whatsoever!

As the cliché goes, “You only get one chance to make a good first impression.” Some suggestions to make your networking successful:

• Plan carefully
  Set the meeting for a day and time you will be able to show up unless a true emergency unfolds. Don’t try to fit a meeting into a week that’s already filled with important deadlines. And get there on time ─ not doing so sends a message about how you prioritize the relationship.

• Be prepared
  Learn as much as you can about the person with whom you are meeting. Figure out how you might be able to help him or her. Also think about ways he/she may be able to help you.

• Be honest
  All the way along. About everything.

As for me, I have decided to just say “no” to follow up meetings!

TAGS: follow-up, LinkedIn, networking

From my quiet desert town of Tucson, Arizona – what a storm! 

Earlier this week, a professor of law at the University of Arizona just minutes down the road from me wrote an academic paper about the shame of the upside-down loan circumstances in which many American homeowners are drowning.  Shame on the nation’s banks was his point. 

Professor Brent White says these over-extended homeowners (estimated to be about 15 million Americans) would be better off financially if they walked away from their upside down mortgages.  He says they don’t because their moral compass won’t allow it; that it makes them ashamed to do it. 

Professor White respects that moral value but says many people are ashamed to walk away from their mortgage because they/we live a double standard.  A double standard that expects moral norms for Main Street and accepts market norms for Wall Street.  Banks operate to maximize profits.  Banks think about their interest(s) and look out for themselves.  Banks do this often at Main Street’s expense.  Professor White believes this double standard is what scares American homeowners into meeting to the market norm mentality that puts them in this upside-down home, negative equity situation.

I think he’s got a point.  And to me, the point is:  think about what’s in your best interest. 

Professor White isn’t advocating anyone walk away from their mortgage unless they feel its right for them.  White is saying American homeowners must act on economic self interest and determine what financial decision given their circumstances – is right for them.  And, he concludes, since shame doesn’t work for banks, it shouldn’t work for homeowners who are considering walking away from their homes.

This is a mind over money matters decision.  This is one of those situations where your mind over your money – matters.  If you choose to do this, know that there will be consequences.  Mortgage lenders are outraged and say it’s unethical.  They remind you – correctly – that this decision to walk away from your mortgage will stay on your credit report for 5 to 7 years. 

But advocates of this option say – your credit is already battered, you’ll have to take the steps to rebuild it anyway.  What you pay, the bank will solely benefit because you can’t keep up with the growing debt.  And to get in front of it now – is impossible.  Why throw money at a market mentality that is morally irreverent? 

It’s your money – take it personally.  Everyone’s situation is different.  There are 15 million Americans facing this right now.  It might be ok for you (or any one of them) to walk away from an upside down mortgage if it’s in your (their) best interest. 

Here’s to your health and wealth.

TAGS: default or walk away from homes, Upside down mortgages

We may not like it because most people on Main Street are still hurting and struggling financially, but when earnings rebound, when bailout loans get repaid and when a company racks up impressive performances, Wall Street’s long standing bonus structure kicks in.  (Wall Street:  From Bailout to Bonuses, Part 1, post 10/22/09).

Wall Street’s top firm – Goldman Sachs – is sitting on the biggest pot of bonus money in the company’s history:  $23 billion.  Goldman says $16.7 billion of it – is set aside for the much talked about and controversial end-of-year (compensation and benefits) bonuses.

A lot of people on Main Street want to “shoot the messenger” (Goldman Sachs) for having amassed such a bonus pool.  Such a lofty stash of cash infuriates a lot of hardworking, every day people – perhaps in part because Main Street wants to believe that what’s good for Wall Street is good for Main Street and vice versa. 

The reality is – it just doesn’t work that way.  In fact, it’s often the exact opposite.  We live in a capitalistic society and most of us believe in it but feel the practice of bowing to the capitalist gods (corporate America) must change, and that it starts with stopping these eye-popping, anticipated bonuses.

When properly used, I believe bonuses are a good thing.  They were created to motivate performance that would fall to (improve) the bottom line.  And bonuses are a good idea when they’re used as an incentive to motivate stellar performance.  Bonuses weren’t meant to be a guarantee.  They were meant to be the carrot. 

The problem with Wall Street’s bonus structure these days is that bonuses aren’t the carrot that’s being dangled anymore; they’re an expected additional compensation; and the money handlers are getting paid – when they sell you stock, for the transaction, and even when you are losing money on it.

Some say Wall Street bonus rewards should be tied to Main Street’s.  Their argument?  It would motivate the financial services industry to “do the right thing” and “get us back on our feet” rather than just increasing activity where “the rich get richer and though we (Main Street) lost money, they (Wall Street) get a year-end-bonus”.

My issue is the size of end-of-the-year bonuses.  I just can’t wrap my brain around justifying a $500,000 to $700,000 bonus (which is the range the New York Times has calculated for each of Goldman Sachs’ 31,700 employees who qualify for the windfall.)  Goldman’s CEO Lloyd Blankfein says the company needs to pay these huge sums in order to retain its best people or risk losing them to rivals.  

I think that’s a bogus - but popular – argument among all the top firms. 

Here’s the bottom line for Main Street:  the U.S. lost 7.2 million jobs in the last two years driving the unemployment rate to its highest level in more than a quarter of a century.  Plenty of very talented people on Main Street are still looking for work – let alone being retained with six figure salaries and six figure bonuses.

So while there may be some job opportunities out there for these bright, talented, high stakes Wall Street money managers – how many would actually walk away from a job that pays so very well – in this economy?

Here’s to your health and wealth.

TAGS: bailout, Bonus compensation, wall street

Goldman Sachs, Wall Street’s top firm, has set aside $16.7 billion for bonuses to top employees.  That’s up 46% from the bonuses the firm gave a year ago.  Paid at year’s end, this chunk of money is compensation and benefits for the first nine months of 2009.  The New York Times says it’s enough to pay each of Goldman’s bonus qualifying workers $527,192.  

Ka-ching!  But not on Main Street.

Wall Street bonuses have always been a hot topic but – in the current economic environment – bonuses are even more controversial and often lead to some very angry points of view.  

Goldman Sachs is in a lot of people’s crosshairs because Goldman’s bonus number is far greater than any other on Wall Street. 

But the flipside is – Goldman Sachs had a spectacular third quarter:  more than $3 billion ($3.19 billion, to be exact).  And since the bonus compensation formula is based on performance – I believe that will be central to Goldman justifying the bonuses to the public. 

Goldman’s CEO Lloyd Blankfein set a Wall Street pay record two years ago with a $70 million salary, stock, bonuses and options package.  He “slashed” his pay last year ($600,000 and nearly $278,000 in deferred stock rewards) and went without a bonus after the firm’s first quarterly loss.

Blankfein accepted financial support from the government : $10 billion.   He/Goldman Sachs has repaid the $10 billion in bailout money plus dividends.  Now the company is resuming allocating billions of dollars for year end bonuses. 

We may not like it because most people on Main Street are still hurting and struggling financially.  But when earnings rebound, when bailout loans get repaid and when a company starts racking up impressive performance, Wall Street’s long standing bonus structure kicks in.

That’s why I think how Goldman handles this end-of-the-year bonuses story will shape its image in the public’s eye for many years to come.  My bet is Goldman will justify having the biggest bonus pot in company history by showcasing its standing ovation third quarter performance.

Wall Street – From Bailout to Bonuses, Part 2 – next week.

Here’s to your health and wealth.

TAGS: bailout, Bonus compensation, wall street

GE’s former chairman, Jack Welch spoke at the Society for Human Resource Management’s annual conference recently saying (as reported in the Wall Street Journal):

“There’s no such thing as work-life balance. There are work-life choices, and you make them, and they have consequences.” Mr. Welch said those who take time off for family could be passed over for promotions if “you’re not there in the clutch.” …”We’d love to have more women moving up faster,” Mr. Welch said. “But they’ve got to make the tough choices and know the consequences of each one.”  Taking time off for family “can offer a nice life,” Mr. Welch said, “but the chances of going to the top on that path” are smaller.” “That doesn’t mean you can’t have a nice career,” he added.

Not surprisingly, his remarks caused quite a stir ─ as of this writing, 137 comments on the WSJ article, 49,900 hits when one googles  “Welch: ‘No Such Thing as Work-Life Balance’” and undoubtedly quite a few serious conversations between and among aspiring career women and their partners.  I must admit that I struggle with this because while it is true that those who aspire to the CEO position must make “tough choices”, it really bothers me that Welch seems to view this as a problem only women face.  Anyone who covets the corner office must come to grips with the fact that the air gets harder and harder to breathe the higher one goes up the corporate ladder.

Welsh is a complicated personality ─ his 2001 autobiography, Straight From The Gut is illustrative.  When I read it, it struck me that he seems to struggle with women ─ he idolizes them (see his over-the-top tributes to his mother), takes them for granted (see his description of his marriage to Carolyn, his first wife) and underestimates them (see the Afterward he wrote after his second wife, Jane Beasley, made his very lucrative retirement package public in connection with contentious divorce settlement negotiations).  And more recently, fell head over heels in love with Suzy Wetlaufer while she was interviewing him for an article she was writing for Harvard Business Review.  She has since become his third wife.

What should you do if you work for someone like this?

• Accept that he won’t be able to ignore the fact that you are female.  It will always be an issue, the elephant in the room.   Anticipate situations when things might get uncomfortable for you and  avoid them.
• Recognize that his ego is bigger than North Dakota.  He will not be able to give you credit for the work you do without some level of Pygmalion glow. He will not allow you to move on to larger roles in other parts of the company unless you have completely solved his succession problem – you must source and completely indoctrinate your successor.
• Exit “Stage Left”  as quickly as possible.  This kind of a boss is not coachable.  He is so stuck in old ways of thinking that it’ll take a team of employment lawyers several years to pry him out.

While sexual harassment is illegal, it is difficult to prove and taxing to your career and your soul.  Ditto for sexual discrimination.  You certainly can (and sometimes have no choice but to do so) take someone like him on but sadly, these remarks come from a recognized leading business thinker.  Perhaps we haven’t come so far after all.

TAGS: the thin pink line, walking the thin pink line, work life balance

It’s no secret that I love networking and encourage it. I think building and maintaining relationships is one of the most important keys to success in our careers and our lives.

However…

There is a dark side to networking, such as people who want to take rather than share or those who are just plain unpleasant. Here are a few of the irritating types I’ve come across in my career travels. I’m curious to know if you’ve met some of these, and how you’ve handled them…

The Copycat. This type is usually well-meaning and friendly, but asks for the keys to your career castle. In my case, as a writer and speaker, the Copycat is a stranger who emails me out of the blue asking for my advice on getting writing gigs for the magazines I write for and speaking gigs at the places where I speak. I wholeheartedly believe in abundance-that there is enough work and success to go around-but am I going to give you my business plan and Rolodex so you can directly compete with me? Um…no.

The Overasker. There are many connections I’m happy to share freely, such as a trustworthy real estate lawyer or a hairstylist who understands curls. And then there are connections that are unique and uniquely important to me, which I only share with my most trusted inner circle.  In my case, this includes someone like my literary agent. For other people, it may mean a CEO mentor or a celebrity they know from high school. The Overasker doesn’t appreciate the special nature of such VIP relationships and asks for a connection to anyone and everyone. “I heard you went to college with Rupert Murdoch’s son and once sat on a dais next to Hillary Clinton. Can you give me their numbers?” is asking too much. The Overasker needs to learn that some networking relationships must be earned.

The Dr. Jekyll. This type is rare, but pretty shocking if you come across her (or him). She is someone who has complained about your company or an event that you hosted in the past, and is now asking for a favor. In my case, the Dr. Jekyll came in the form of a woman who wrote a review of my book that included a lot of criticisms. The same day (!) she emailed to ask me for help with a personal project she was working on. Although I was kind of impressed by her chutzpah, I certainly didn’t have any desire to network with her. It’s a well-known maxim that people want to do business with people they like, and the same definitely goes for networking.

So, watch out for those Copycats, Overaskers and Dr. Jekyll as you go about your networking. And thank you for letting me get those grievances off my chest!

This post originally appeared on The Women’s DISH.

TAGS: networking

I am thrilled to share my first post on The Thin Pink Line, joining the ranks of three women I admire tremendously. I’m eager to contribute my thoughts, opinions and stories as a Gen X woman whose passion is helping Gen Ys adapt to the professional world and helping organizations adapt to Gen Y.

So, I thought it would be fitting to make my first post about a generational issue that’s been on my mind a lot lately: the bashing of Gen Y workers.

I try to read everything in the news about Generation Y and careers. This means I regularly find myself plodding through frustrating stories about how the Millennials are “entitled,” “coddled” and “disloyal.” A recent article on MSNBC.com is yet another maddening example.

When did the Baby Boomers mantra “Don’t trust anyone over 30” turn into “Don’t trust anyone under 30”?

Why, during the worst economy in over 60 years, would anyone tell our youngest workers—our future leaders—that they are “not special” and “woefully unprepared”? If we said this about any other type of worker, it would be discrimination. Why is it okay to bash young workers?

I acknowledge that many Millennials (those born in the 1980s and 90s) are not as prepared as previous generations when it comes to some very important areas of work, such as writing skills and professionalism. I would argue in return that they are significantly more prepared in such very important areas as technology, sensitivity to diversity and globalization.

And yes, many young workers like to change jobs frequently. But this is a natural and understandable result of growing up in a time of unprecedented economic expansion, the dot com revolution and rounds upon rounds of corporate downsizings. Millennials know they’ll never work at one company for 30 years and retire with a gold watch. They’re not disloyal; they’re realistic. And, when they find a company that has adapted to the new realities of the workforce, such as Zappos.com, they do stay.

It’s important for a news outlet like MSNBC to report that younger workers have been especially hard hit in the economic downturn. It’s another thing entirely to basically blame it on the young workers. Criticizing Millennials is a total waste of time and energy. Instead of disparaging the young people quoted in the article, why not offer them some tips to land jobs, or balance the piece with some stories of Millennials who are succeeding despite the recession?

Most of the organizations I know that employ Millennials have some complaints. But, those employers tell me, once they provide some coaching and adapt their training and management practices a bit, they are generally thrilled with the productivity, creativity and hard work of their young workers. I’ve seen the same with the Gen Ys I know and work with.

I’ve seen:

young people, like Marissa Davis, who are starting nonprofit organizations to solve social problems

young people, like the college women featured in the terrific documentary “What’s Your Point, Honey?” who want to be President someday

young people, like Nuzhat Karim, who are working diligently to contribute to the success of their employers.

What is the point of my rant? It’s this: I challenge anyone who wants to criticize young workers to do three things:

1) Talk to a Millennial and ask that young person how he or she sees the world.

2) Tell that Millennial how you see the world.

3) Repeat.

Stop bashing Generation Y. We’re all in this together.

A version of this article previously appeared on the Lindsey Pollak Career Blog.

TAGS: Gen Y Women, Generational issues