Kobe and Shaq: Destined For Dysfunction

After watching Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal revisit their famous successful-yet-uncomfortable working relationship during NBA All-Star Weekend, I thought I'd try to shed light on why this "dynamic duo" was destined for dysfunction.

If you aren't familiar with MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), it describes personality types and predicts behavior based on how one prefers to deal with the world, process information, interact with others and make decisions. 

While guessing someone else's personality type is nowhere near an exact science, I tried to do just that based on what can be ascertained from their public behavior.

From what I can tell, Kobe is an ISTJ...

"…ISTJs are quiet and reserved individuals who are interested in security and peaceful living. They have a strongly-felt internal sense of duty, which lends them a serious air and the motivation to follow through on tasks. Organized and methodical in their approach, they can generally succeed at any task which they undertake…."

Shaq fits the description of an ESFP...

"…ESFPs live in the world of people possibilities. They love people and new experiences. They are lively and fun, and enjoy being the center of attention. They live in the here-and-now, and relish excitement and drama in their lives…."

And hence, if I am correct, the complexities of their relationship are rather predictable.  Socionics.com defines this pairing as a "Relationship of Supervision."  In this case, Shaq would be the Supervisor and Kobe would be the Supervisee.

Read the description below, and consider the similarities to their tumultuous relationship while teammates with the Los Angeles Lakers, and perhaps even their ongoing interactions to this day.  Was the greatest one-two punch in NBA history destined to be short-lived from the very start?  You be the judge...

Relationships of Supervision

These relationships are also asymmetrical as are relationships of Benefit. One partner, called the Supervisor, is always in a more favourable position in respect to the other partner who is known as Supervisee.

Relationships of Supervision can give the impression that Supervisor is constantly watching every step of the Supervisee. The latter usually feels this control even if the Supervisor does not say or do anything. The explanation for this is that the Supervisee weak point is defenceless against the Supervisor's strong point. This makes the Supervisee nervous and expect the worse.

Although the Supervisor can seem self-satisfied, petty, faultfinding and narrative, the Supervisee pays attention to their actions and considers the Supervisor as consequential. The Supervisee normally wants to gain recognition and commendation from the Supervisor. However, it may seem like the Supervisor always undervalues the abilities of the Supervisee. This stimulates the Supervisee into proving their own worthiness with various actions, yet there is little chance that they will succeed.

The Supervisor sees the Supervisee as quite interesting and capable, but incomplete and therefore in need of some help and advice. The Supervisee does not respond to this aid as expected and this will often increase the Supervisor's attempts to change the Supervisee. Because the Supervisee naturally does not understand what it is that the Supervisor wants from them, this may irritate the Supervisor, who thinks that the Supervisee simply does not want to understand.

In relationships of Supervision it may also appear as if the Supervisor patronises the Supervisee, which can be quite obtrusive for the latter. When there are more than two people present, the Supervisee often attempts to release themselves from the control of the Supervisor by starting arguments for the sake of it or by attempting to manoeuvre themselves into the commanding position. Unfortunately, these attempts lead nowhere. The Supervisor may think instead that the Supervisee simply requires more attention.

Supervision partners often look like good friends. The reason for this is that in these relationships both partners can sense their social value: the Supervisor as a "guardian angel", without whom the Supervisee will get into trouble, and the Supervisee as the object of attention.

If this is accurate, then certainly Kobe was never going to appreciate "little brother" status from Shaq, nor was Shaq going to allow Kobe an equal share of stature as Kareem Abdul Jabaar once did for a young Magic Johnson.  Perhaps there is no way this combination of egos could co-exist.

On the downside of his career, Shaq appears to have developed positive perspective about his ex-teammate.  Kobe, on the other hand, probably needs another championship ring or two before he can truly be sincere about burying the hatchet.