Dear Raf.... 12 July 14
What's up everyone? Hope everyone is doing well this Saturday morning. If you're tuned in to me here, again, thank you for the views and for the support. If you enjoy what you're reading, hit that follow button there at the bottom of the page. It may require you to create a Google+ account, but you should do that anyway, because Google+ is awesome! Anyway, today I wanted to get into my second Dear Raf segment, and answer a few questions from you, the readers.
Q. Raf, what are your thoughts on coworker rivalries?
A. Well, coworker rivalries can be a good thing and a bad thing to me. In the good case, a little friendly rivalry where two coworkers are competing against one another to do better than the other can work out great for the greater good of the office, company, or wherever they work. I actually encourage this kind of rivalry amongst my subordinates at work, because I believe each of them should want to outdo the other and compete for awards. Nobody should just concede victory to their other peer just because one outranks them, or they don't think they truly have a shot at taking home the title. I enjoy competition and I believe that competition is what's best for business.
However, in the bad sense of this scenario, if people don't understand their roles, then workplace rivalry can create problems. I'll give an example of a scenario that I experienced a few years back. I moved into an office where there was already somebody the same rank as me, who was the assistant boss of the office. I had more years of experience than that individual, and a little bit more training overall than them, so when I was placed in that office, I took their job ultimately. No fault of my own, I didn't ask to steal their job, but that's the way business works. The person kind of felt as if I was trying to undermine and belittle them when I took over the position, which I wasn't, I was just trying to do my job to the best of my ability. So for a while, me and that person had a lot of animosity towards each other. They didn't understand my position, and I guess I wasn't sensitive enough to understand how they felt on the matter either. This created a horrible situation, and caused a lot of friction between us in the office. We would have some good days, and some bad days, but for the most part, we were at each other's throats. Eventually, we had a big blowup in the office, which I regret, but which also turned out to be the best thing for our relationship. All of the problems that we had with each other were exposed and thrown on the table. Once we got angry, and then calmed down and talked everything out, we became very close coworkers, and pretty good friends later. We never had any other problems in the office between each other, and everything flowed smoothly until she moved away from the city.
So to me, as long as everyone involved understands their roles, and they keep the rivalries good spirited without any pent up anger and animosity, then coworker rivals are a good thing, and the competitive spirit can be a good thing for everyone in the office. But the moment things become heated, then the situation needs to be squashed immediately.
Q. Do you think ladies would date a man, who waited 90 days before he spent money on them?
A. Ok, so for those who aren't familiar with the whole 90 day thing, in the movie and book, " Think Like a Man," Steve Harvey teaches women that they shouldn't give a man the booty until the 90 day mark of dating at least, basically saying that if a man gets it earlier, then he would potentially leave, and that could be all that he wanted in the first place. I guess the 90 day period is enough time to feel the man out, and see if he's really into you or whatever. Personally, I think that logic is dumb, and doesn't mean anything. Without getting too deep into my personal life, I didn't have to wait 90 days with my lady, and I've been married for almost seven years. There's been other women in the past that made me wait longer, and I never wound up dating them. The great poet Andre 3000 once said in the song, Where Are My Panties?, "I don't give a shit about giving it up on the first night. That just lets me know, she knows what she wants outta life." ( here's the link for those who want to listen for themselves: http://youtu.be/WuOPN83cwr4 ) Mr. 3000 couldn't be more correct, in my opinion. Most men that I know don't really give a damn about things like that. If we like you, we will keep you around. If you make us wait 90 days, and the booty isn't good, you're still potentially gone effective immediately. We will wish you good luck on your future endeavors though.
Back to the original question though. Do I think ladies would date a man who waited 90 days before he spent money on them? No, not at all. A woman would be gone with the quickness, especially if this includes dates. Men are expected by women to pay for everything on those initial dates. Drinks, food at the restaurants, movie tickets, popcorn, ice cream afterwards, etc. Men are expected to cover the bill on all of that. Most men don't have a problem covering all the expenses on dates, because we are trying to impress you. Why? Because of the POTENTIAL of the happiness at the end. Now there are men who aren't trying to get some booty quickly. Good, wholesome men who may be actually courting a woman to be their future wife. Those guys do exist, and I wish I was one of them back in my day, and I hope my daughters encounter men like them. But if we're being honest here, most men are trying to impress you with hopes of POTENTIALLY, getting some booty, sooner rather than later. Facts are facts. Women really don't have anything to be held accountable for on dates, except to look great, have good smelling breath, and keep a good conversation. All the pressure is on men on dates to treat and spoil the women. Again, facts are facts. Women love to be spoiled. If a man didn't spoil the woman on that FIRST date, then there wouldn't be a second date, let alone 90 days later to see if the man would potentially spend money on them. That's a given. I really want to say here that there are good women out there who would be ok with this, and wait it out 90 days, but I really just don't think it's possible. I don't know a woman who wasn't raised to be treated on dates. So the answer from me, is a resounding no. I'm ready for the arguments that say otherwise though.
LAST ONE!
Q. What are the differences and similarities between male and female supervisors? How does each sex affect the workplace? What trends do you notice in male vs female supervisors and which do you prefer?
A. These are very good questions, and I'll try to answer them using my own experiences. Throughout my life, whether it be working at WalMart, Target, or even my current career, going to work when I had male supervision, has always been less stressful than going to work with female supervisors. In most cases, me and the male supervisors also get along great as friends, and have a different type of relationship than with their female counterparts. We talk sports, music, cars, heck even women, and can laugh, and joke, and have a good time while working, but also, the male supervisors could cut all that off and get serious about work if they needed to, and give me great advice. Male supervisors are more relaxed for the most part. With that being said, when it came down to my actual performance reviews, I've never had a male supervisor write one for me. Always been a female supervisor that has written my performance reviews. Weird.
As it relates to female supervisors in my lifetime, let me start by saying two things. The absolute best supervisor I've ever had in my life, was a female supervisor. I praise her all the time, and consider her to be my mentor, and a lifesaver for me. On the flip side, the absolute worst supervisor I've ever had in my life was a female supervisor. She was just a horrible person to have to call in need, or talk to, or ask advice about life or anything. She was completely useless to me and didn't help me in my career at all.
Female supervisors are typically, at least for me, more strict and straight to the point than their male counterparts. Typically, not always. My female supervisors would tend to get stressed out easier from their leadership, and I've also had some of them take that stress out on me and their other subordinates as a result. That's never a good thing, and makes the respect level drop for that particular supervisor. Again, this isn't always true, but just my experiences. Sure, you may laugh and crack jokes and have a good time with those supervisors, but it's not the same kind of conversations, at least on a personal level, as it was with the male supervisors.
Let me go back to that best supervisor I spoke of and what made her great to me. It was like, we had a good personal relationship as well, and she made me comfortable to talk to her about anything, even if I never did. I always knew that I could, and that was great. If something was going on with my family, I knew she genuinely cared, and would do whatever she could to help me. When I got stressed and almost to the point of tears about promotion, she talked with me, and told me what I needed to do to make sure that I'd get it the next time. She was, and still is a great career adviser. I also consider her my friend and mentor. She's someone that I try to emulate on a regular basis. I look up to her and value her words of advice and encouragement. But, she also didn't get stressed out about things like some other female supervisors I've had, and if she did, she didn't take it out on me and the others. I guess you could say she had some of the traits I liked from the male supervisors I had. She was really laid back. So I think that plays a huge factor into the situation.
Which do I prefer in the end? I really have no preference actually, as long as you're good at your job and you don't bring me more stress in my life than I need. Some of the male supervision that I've had that I thought were cool, were considered to be arseholes by others who were supervised by them. I currently have a great female supervisor, who I look at like she could be my big sister. She gives great advice, and her communication skills are spot on. That's a point that I forgot to mention above that caused problems between me and some other female supervisors. A lot of them didn't know how to effectively communicate as supervisors, and would talk to me as if I was a toddler, instead of an adult working for them. I'm transitioning right now into having a male supervisor within the next week, and from what I can tell of him already, he fits the same criteria as any of the previous male supervisors that I've had. Cool, calm, laid back guy that I get along with, and don't expect any problems out of. I also fully expect him to lay down the law if necessary, and give me great advice for career progression. So it's kind of a toss up. I just hope that personally, I don't let him down, and also, that I don't let those down that I supervise. I genuinely care for my subordinates, and want to see them go further and be better and more awesome than I was at that stage of my career. At the end of the day, that's all I can do for them.
That's all for this week folks. I hope I answered your questions well, and again, if you enjoy what you're reading here, give me a like and hit that follow button at the bottom of the page here. Also, make sure to tell your friends about it, and if you want to see answer your questions here next week, shoot me the questions here, through Facebook, or by text if you know me that well. Thanks again, and I'll talk to you all next time.
Q. Raf, what are your thoughts on coworker rivalries?
A. Well, coworker rivalries can be a good thing and a bad thing to me. In the good case, a little friendly rivalry where two coworkers are competing against one another to do better than the other can work out great for the greater good of the office, company, or wherever they work. I actually encourage this kind of rivalry amongst my subordinates at work, because I believe each of them should want to outdo the other and compete for awards. Nobody should just concede victory to their other peer just because one outranks them, or they don't think they truly have a shot at taking home the title. I enjoy competition and I believe that competition is what's best for business.
However, in the bad sense of this scenario, if people don't understand their roles, then workplace rivalry can create problems. I'll give an example of a scenario that I experienced a few years back. I moved into an office where there was already somebody the same rank as me, who was the assistant boss of the office. I had more years of experience than that individual, and a little bit more training overall than them, so when I was placed in that office, I took their job ultimately. No fault of my own, I didn't ask to steal their job, but that's the way business works. The person kind of felt as if I was trying to undermine and belittle them when I took over the position, which I wasn't, I was just trying to do my job to the best of my ability. So for a while, me and that person had a lot of animosity towards each other. They didn't understand my position, and I guess I wasn't sensitive enough to understand how they felt on the matter either. This created a horrible situation, and caused a lot of friction between us in the office. We would have some good days, and some bad days, but for the most part, we were at each other's throats. Eventually, we had a big blowup in the office, which I regret, but which also turned out to be the best thing for our relationship. All of the problems that we had with each other were exposed and thrown on the table. Once we got angry, and then calmed down and talked everything out, we became very close coworkers, and pretty good friends later. We never had any other problems in the office between each other, and everything flowed smoothly until she moved away from the city.
So to me, as long as everyone involved understands their roles, and they keep the rivalries good spirited without any pent up anger and animosity, then coworker rivals are a good thing, and the competitive spirit can be a good thing for everyone in the office. But the moment things become heated, then the situation needs to be squashed immediately.
Q. Do you think ladies would date a man, who waited 90 days before he spent money on them?
A. Ok, so for those who aren't familiar with the whole 90 day thing, in the movie and book, " Think Like a Man," Steve Harvey teaches women that they shouldn't give a man the booty until the 90 day mark of dating at least, basically saying that if a man gets it earlier, then he would potentially leave, and that could be all that he wanted in the first place. I guess the 90 day period is enough time to feel the man out, and see if he's really into you or whatever. Personally, I think that logic is dumb, and doesn't mean anything. Without getting too deep into my personal life, I didn't have to wait 90 days with my lady, and I've been married for almost seven years. There's been other women in the past that made me wait longer, and I never wound up dating them. The great poet Andre 3000 once said in the song, Where Are My Panties?, "I don't give a shit about giving it up on the first night. That just lets me know, she knows what she wants outta life." ( here's the link for those who want to listen for themselves: http://youtu.be/WuOPN83cwr4 ) Mr. 3000 couldn't be more correct, in my opinion. Most men that I know don't really give a damn about things like that. If we like you, we will keep you around. If you make us wait 90 days, and the booty isn't good, you're still potentially gone effective immediately. We will wish you good luck on your future endeavors though.
Back to the original question though. Do I think ladies would date a man who waited 90 days before he spent money on them? No, not at all. A woman would be gone with the quickness, especially if this includes dates. Men are expected by women to pay for everything on those initial dates. Drinks, food at the restaurants, movie tickets, popcorn, ice cream afterwards, etc. Men are expected to cover the bill on all of that. Most men don't have a problem covering all the expenses on dates, because we are trying to impress you. Why? Because of the POTENTIAL of the happiness at the end. Now there are men who aren't trying to get some booty quickly. Good, wholesome men who may be actually courting a woman to be their future wife. Those guys do exist, and I wish I was one of them back in my day, and I hope my daughters encounter men like them. But if we're being honest here, most men are trying to impress you with hopes of POTENTIALLY, getting some booty, sooner rather than later. Facts are facts. Women really don't have anything to be held accountable for on dates, except to look great, have good smelling breath, and keep a good conversation. All the pressure is on men on dates to treat and spoil the women. Again, facts are facts. Women love to be spoiled. If a man didn't spoil the woman on that FIRST date, then there wouldn't be a second date, let alone 90 days later to see if the man would potentially spend money on them. That's a given. I really want to say here that there are good women out there who would be ok with this, and wait it out 90 days, but I really just don't think it's possible. I don't know a woman who wasn't raised to be treated on dates. So the answer from me, is a resounding no. I'm ready for the arguments that say otherwise though.
LAST ONE!
Q. What are the differences and similarities between male and female supervisors? How does each sex affect the workplace? What trends do you notice in male vs female supervisors and which do you prefer?
A. These are very good questions, and I'll try to answer them using my own experiences. Throughout my life, whether it be working at WalMart, Target, or even my current career, going to work when I had male supervision, has always been less stressful than going to work with female supervisors. In most cases, me and the male supervisors also get along great as friends, and have a different type of relationship than with their female counterparts. We talk sports, music, cars, heck even women, and can laugh, and joke, and have a good time while working, but also, the male supervisors could cut all that off and get serious about work if they needed to, and give me great advice. Male supervisors are more relaxed for the most part. With that being said, when it came down to my actual performance reviews, I've never had a male supervisor write one for me. Always been a female supervisor that has written my performance reviews. Weird.
As it relates to female supervisors in my lifetime, let me start by saying two things. The absolute best supervisor I've ever had in my life, was a female supervisor. I praise her all the time, and consider her to be my mentor, and a lifesaver for me. On the flip side, the absolute worst supervisor I've ever had in my life was a female supervisor. She was just a horrible person to have to call in need, or talk to, or ask advice about life or anything. She was completely useless to me and didn't help me in my career at all.
Female supervisors are typically, at least for me, more strict and straight to the point than their male counterparts. Typically, not always. My female supervisors would tend to get stressed out easier from their leadership, and I've also had some of them take that stress out on me and their other subordinates as a result. That's never a good thing, and makes the respect level drop for that particular supervisor. Again, this isn't always true, but just my experiences. Sure, you may laugh and crack jokes and have a good time with those supervisors, but it's not the same kind of conversations, at least on a personal level, as it was with the male supervisors.
Let me go back to that best supervisor I spoke of and what made her great to me. It was like, we had a good personal relationship as well, and she made me comfortable to talk to her about anything, even if I never did. I always knew that I could, and that was great. If something was going on with my family, I knew she genuinely cared, and would do whatever she could to help me. When I got stressed and almost to the point of tears about promotion, she talked with me, and told me what I needed to do to make sure that I'd get it the next time. She was, and still is a great career adviser. I also consider her my friend and mentor. She's someone that I try to emulate on a regular basis. I look up to her and value her words of advice and encouragement. But, she also didn't get stressed out about things like some other female supervisors I've had, and if she did, she didn't take it out on me and the others. I guess you could say she had some of the traits I liked from the male supervisors I had. She was really laid back. So I think that plays a huge factor into the situation.
Which do I prefer in the end? I really have no preference actually, as long as you're good at your job and you don't bring me more stress in my life than I need. Some of the male supervision that I've had that I thought were cool, were considered to be arseholes by others who were supervised by them. I currently have a great female supervisor, who I look at like she could be my big sister. She gives great advice, and her communication skills are spot on. That's a point that I forgot to mention above that caused problems between me and some other female supervisors. A lot of them didn't know how to effectively communicate as supervisors, and would talk to me as if I was a toddler, instead of an adult working for them. I'm transitioning right now into having a male supervisor within the next week, and from what I can tell of him already, he fits the same criteria as any of the previous male supervisors that I've had. Cool, calm, laid back guy that I get along with, and don't expect any problems out of. I also fully expect him to lay down the law if necessary, and give me great advice for career progression. So it's kind of a toss up. I just hope that personally, I don't let him down, and also, that I don't let those down that I supervise. I genuinely care for my subordinates, and want to see them go further and be better and more awesome than I was at that stage of my career. At the end of the day, that's all I can do for them.
That's all for this week folks. I hope I answered your questions well, and again, if you enjoy what you're reading here, give me a like and hit that follow button at the bottom of the page here. Also, make sure to tell your friends about it, and if you want to see answer your questions here next week, shoot me the questions here, through Facebook, or by text if you know me that well. Thanks again, and I'll talk to you all next time.
Well that ed way too long for only the questions lol. I didn't read the last response because I'd was the longest of them all. Great topics though and none of those aren't anything I haven't thought about myself
ReplyDelete