You know, whenever I hear about intense rivalries, like that whole “Porto vs Boavista” thing, it doesn’t always make me think of sports. Sometimes, it brings back memories of other kinds of showdowns, ones that happen in much quieter places, like an office.
I remember this one time, at a company I used to work for. We were supposed to be one big happy team, but on this particular project, man, it felt like we had our own internal derby. The whole thing split down the middle. For the sake of the story, let’s just say we had “Team Porto” and “Team Boavista,” each absolutely convinced their way was the only way to go. It was a mess.
Management? They mostly just wrung their hands. Didn’t want to pick a side, you know? So, the two “teams” just dug in deeper. “Team Porto” was all about flash and quick results. Their plan looked great on paper, lots of buzzwords, very appealing to the folks upstairs who didn’t really get the nuts and bolts of it. They promised the moon, and fast.
“Team Boavista,” which was the smaller, less noisy group, had a different idea. More grounded, more focused on building something that would actually last, even if it took a bit longer and wasn’t as glamorous. I found myself leaning towards their way of thinking, mostly because I’d already done a bunch of groundwork that showed it was the more sensible path.
So, why do I remember this so vividly?
Well, I got caught right in the crossfire. My immediate boss was kind of swayed by the “Porto” charisma, but my gut, and the data I had, kept screaming that the “Boavista” approach was the one that wouldn’t blow up in our faces later. Trying to get anyone to listen was like talking to a brick wall.
I recall endless meetings. Honestly, they weren’t meetings; they were battle royales. People from “Team Porto” would present their slick PowerPoints, and it all sounded so convincing if you didn’t dig too deep. Then someone from “Team Boavista” would try to point out the flaws, the long-term problems, and they’d get dismissed as being negative or “not a team player.” Classic stuff.
There was this one week, I barely slept. I was trying to put together a solid case, proper evidence, to show that the flashy “Porto” plan was basically a house of cards. I wasn’t trying to be difficult; I just genuinely believed we were heading for a cliff. I presented my findings. Got a lot of polite nods and then… they went with “Team Porto” anyway. Figures.
And how did that turn out?
Well, for a few months, it looked like “Team Porto” had nailed it. They hit some early targets, there were pats on the back, probably some bonuses too. I was already starting to look for other opportunities by then because the atmosphere was just draining.
Sure enough, about six or seven months down the line, the cracks started showing. Big ones. The whole “Porto” solution began to crumble. Constant problems, angry clients, late nights for everyone left trying to patch it up. It was exactly what “Team Boavista” had warned about. They ended up spending a fortune on external consultants to try and fix the mess. Eventually, very quietly, they had to scrap a lot of it and rebuild, using principles that were suspiciously similar to what “Team Boavista” had proposed all along. No apologies, no “you were right.” Of course not.
I was long gone by then, watching from afar with a bit of a grim satisfaction, I guess. It really drove home for me how in some places, the loudest, most confident-sounding idea often wins, even if it’s not the best one. That whole “derby” taught me a lot about picking your battles, and sometimes, knowing when to just walk away. It’s a practical record I’ve kept in mind ever since.
