So, I was fiddling around with this concept today, something I’ve mentally tagged as my “Kobe Tim Duncan” filter. Sounds kinda sporty, I know, but it’s more about how I look at projects and, well, people, sometimes.
The whole idea started simple enough. I was trying to sort out different approaches to problem-solving I’ve seen over the years. You got your Kobe approach: super aggressive, high-risk, sometimes dazzling, all about individual brilliance making the impossible happen. Then you got your Tim Duncan approach: fundamental, steady, team-focused, less flashy but incredibly effective and reliable. Rock solid.
I started by just jotting down tasks, even whole projects from past jobs.
- That crazy last-minute feature push with no specs? Kobe pile.
- The meticulously planned database migration? Duncan, all the way.
- That one guy who always had a workaround, even if it was duct tape and prayers? Leaning Kobe.
- The team lead who just made sure everyone had what they needed and quietly steered the ship? Pure Duncan.
It was kinda enlightening, actually, seeing things laid out like that. Trying to find a balance, you know? But it also dredged up some… memories.
So why was I even thinking about this stuff so hard?
It’s because it reminded me of this one joint I worked at. Man, talk about a mismatch. They talked a real good game about “sustainable pace” and “building quality” – all Duncan, right? Sounded great on paper, during the interview. But the reality? Pure chaos, driven by management who wanted Kobe-level miracles on a Duncan-level budget and timeline, often without understanding what either really meant.
I remember this one project specifically. We were supposed to be building this robust, scalable platform. Months of careful planning, laying the groundwork, real foundational Duncan stuff. Then, some exec flies in, sees a demo from a competitor with some flashy, half-baked UI gimmick, and suddenly that became the only thing that mattered. “Forget the foundation,” they basically said, “we need that sizzle, and we need it by next week!”
It was nuts. We’d try to explain, “Look, this Duncan-style build needs time, it needs the fundamentals to be right.” And they’d just stare blankly and say something like, “But we need to be agile! We need to be like Kobe, make the game-winning shot!” They didn’t get that Kobe also put in insane hours on fundamentals. They just saw the highlight reel.
The place was a revolving door for talent. Good people would come in, all bright-eyed, wanting to build good, solid things. They’d last maybe a year, then leave looking like they’d been through a wringer. Constantly trying to pull off these impossible, high-pressure “Kobe” plays without any of the support, practice, or frankly, the superstar talent needed to actually make them work consistently. It was just exhausting and demoralizing.
I even remember this one lead developer, a really sharp guy, super dedicated to doing things the right way. He argued for weeks for proper testing, for realistic timelines. He got so burned out trying to bridge the gap between their Duncan talk and their frantic Kobe demands. One Monday, he just didn’t show up. Sent an email saying he was going to teach high school math instead. Can’t say I blamed him. Probably way more logical.
So yeah, that “Kobe Tim Duncan” thing I was doing today. It started as a simple mental exercise. But it really hit home how often organizations preach Duncan but demand Kobe, and then wonder why everything’s on fire. It’s a quick way to spot dysfunction, I tell ya. Just a little something I picked up along the way.
