What managers can learn from the 'KiBam' victories opposition

The story begins with what political observers called impossible. Bam Aquino, polling "not even in the Top 20" when he announced his candidacy, finished second in the 2025 senatorial race with over 20 million votes. Kiko Pangilinan, ranked 17th in pre-election surveys, secured fifth place. The KiBam tandem's success defied conventional political wisdom and expensive campaign machinery.

For managers and organizational leaders, their breakthrough offers something more valuable than political commentary—it presents a case study in how focused strategy can triumph over traditional resources. The question becomes: How can we rethink opposition, not just in politics, but within our own organizations and society?

The cultural architecture of Philippine politics mirrors what we observe in organizational environments. Fr. Leonardo Mercado describes sakop—the Filipino concept of group belonging that creates invisible but powerful tribal boundaries. In organizations, these manifest as departmental silos, generational divides, or competing business units. Like political factions, these groups develop their own loyalties, languages, and defensive mechanisms.

Aquino's strategy offers an example in navigating this reality. Rather than attacking the Duterte sakop directly—a move that would have triggered defensive responses and strengthened tribal bonds—he maintained a non-antagonistic and calm demeanor. This approach allowed voters from different camps to consider his message without feeling their group identity threatened. The management parallel is striking: How often do we see organizational change initiatives fail because they're perceived as attacks on existing teams rather than invitations to join something better?

The double-edged nature of Filipino relationship-building becomes apparent here. The same cultural values that create factional thinking can, when carefully navigated, generate the bayanihan spirit that transcends individual interests. The challenge lies in expanding the definition of sakop from narrow tribal boundaries to encompass shared concerns that affect everyone.

The KiBam approach centered on what might seem like basic issues—education and food security—but these represented carefully chosen "wicked problems" that transcended personality-based politics. Aquino's work on free education and Pangilinan's agricultural advocacy created direct, tangible benefits that families could experience personally. This generated genuine utang na loob, the Filipino concept of reciprocal obligation based on real service rather than empty promises.

Consider how this translates to organizational leadership. The most effective change agents often focus on fundamental issues that matter to all stakeholders—workplace safety, fair compensation, or meaningful professional development. These concerns cut across hierarchical levels and departmental boundaries, creating natural coalitions around shared interests rather than forcing people to choose sides in ideological or personality-based battles.

The KiBam strategy also involved careful issue selection. They deliberately avoided the era's most divisive "hot-button" topics—the Duterte arrest, the Marcos-Duterte feud, impeachment proceedings. This discipline prevented them from being drawn into polarizing debates that would have limited their appeal to any single faction. In organizational terms, this translates to focusing on what unites diverse stakeholder groups rather than emphasizing what divides them.

Perhaps most instructively, the KiBam model challenges our fundamental understanding of what opposition means. Traditional opposition defines itself through criticism and resistance—what it stands against. The KiBam approach was fundamentally different: proposing rather than opposing, building rather than breaking down.

This has direct applications for corporate environments. How do we challenge established practices without alienating colleagues who created or support them? How do we advocate for change while maintaining relationships necessary for implementation? The answer may lie in positioning ourselves as problem-solvers rather than critics, offering solutions that address everyone's concerns rather than simply pointing out flaws.

The youth volunteer phenomenon that powered Aquino's campaign reveals something important about engagement. This suggests that authentic advocacy, grounded in real solutions to shared problems, can inspire the kind of grassroots mobilization that no amount of top-down communication can manufacture.

The mid-term elections suggest that Filipino voters—and perhaps Filipino organizations—are ready for a more mature form of leadership. One that honors our cultural values while transcending divisions and tribal mindsets. One that builds bridges rather than walls.

As we rethink what political opposition means in society or even in our own organizations, let us reflect: What if our greatest act of opposition was to transcend opposition itself? Perhaps the most radical thing we can do is to focus so intently on solutions that tribal divisions simply lose their relevance.