Victor Mari C. Baguilat Jr.

Channeling my Inner Bhuvan and Captain Russell

Chapter 1: Leadership Success Stories (my very subjective view)

Transcending the Ego system
When I was President of the Philippine Debate Union (PDU) I had to oversee the
operations of accredited debating championships across the country. Debating itself is
already rife with ego (no wonder it is in the lower level in the fields of communication),
but competitive debating is a wildly different thing; it is an explosion of egos altogether.
There was so much distrust and discord among the competing institutions because
largely everyone wants to get the coveted title of “National Debate Champion”. The
backbiting and passive-aggressive taunting are just intense; it was just too messy.
Hence, what we did was we institutionalized rules and we revamped the Constitution.
Strengthening the rules-based framework in a highly competitive environment was an
imperative to allay the distrust. I did not lead without authority because I had the
mandate as president, so that was my Jacinda Arden moment and despite the drama, I
actually enjoyed it. I think the Philippine debate community is a microcosm of the
realities in the more complex and greater political landscape that we have in this
country— bloody and melodramatic but fun at times.

What I learned from leading in an Ego system is that I leaned how to manage various
Egos, diversity of perspectives and different personalities. I was not acquainted with
Theory U back then, so I think that could have improved my impact as president.

Cultivating the Ecosystem

Part of my job as president was to spread debating as a tool for critical thinking in
various schools and universities in the country. I was very passionate about my role
because I love debating and I love to travel. So, we organized debating workshops in UP
Baguio, Ateneo de Davao, and many other educational institutions whose debate
societies are still in its nascent stage. I love this part of the job because I can get
debaters from different competing universities to come together and be a team with a
common goal, which is to spread the art of debating.

Outside of debate competitions, we are friends and we can see the bigger picture. We
see how challenging social constructs and scrutinizing logically flawed pronouncements
can create a more just and humane society. I think we have reached the co-ownership
and co-creation stage without us knowing it because my colleagues at PDU and I all
recognize the importance of strengthening the linkages of the debate societies and
scaling debate education to the rest of the country.

Coalition Building for Equity and Representation

I was re-elected as President of PDU, and as such I had the responsibility to sit as the
representative of the Philippines in the World Debate Council in Botswana (Africa). For
the longest time, there has been tension between some debaters from universities who
come from countries where English is a native language (Harvard, Monash, Oxford, etc.)
and debaters who are vocal against lack of representation and unfair adjudication of
debate rounds— largely those from Asian universities (NUS, DLSU, ADMU, International
Islamic University, etc.) and other schools which come from countries where English is a
Second Language (ESL).

Thinking about it now, that was my “Bhuvan” moment when my colleagues and I who
are representatives of various EFL countries had to challenge not just the obvious
inequities of the system (such as no Asian and other regional representation in the
judging committee, etc.) but the belief system that debaters from Harvard, Oxford and
other prestigious universities will always win against Asians and other ESL speakers. We
feel that there is a glass ceiling for ESL speakers because of the mindset that the native
speakers are smarter, more eloquent and more persuasive than all other students not
by virtue of the arguments they raised in the debate round but based on the prestige of
their schools and well, their twang.

It was very tense and emotionally draining to sit in a meeting at the World Debate
Council talking about thorny issues with a diverse group of intelligent people with
massive egos, but we (representatives from some Southeast Asian countries) lobbied
heavily for a fairer system of adjudication and greater representation. I think the change
in having greater representation and a fairer judging system happened gradually, three
or four years after our term, with the help of caucasian sympathizers, who are like the
“Elizabeths” in the World debate council.

While I would like to think that we have paved the way for future generations of
debaters to reap the benefits of our activism, we stepped on the shoulders of
generations of Asian debaters before us who articulated the same grievances. It was a
shared and collective struggle that I am very proud to have been part of.

Chapter 2: Failed leadership

When I became President and Team Captain of the La Salle Debate Society, some people
labeled my term as the “dark ages of La Salle debating”. I think I was only nineteen years
old at the time and I was not very skilled at leading. The president before me was very
charismatic, and she led by the strength of her personality, which was dictatorial. I think
I modeled her leadership style but my org mates were not responding to my Captain
Russel style of leadership the same way that they did to the person whom I succeeded.
There was even a coup d’état because they think that I was very capricious and
irresponsible.

Several years after graduation, when we would have our reunions, no one would dare
raise the topic ever, because everyone knows that it will open a can of worms, up until
now. It seems child’s play now and I am good friends with the people whom I
considered my little rebels, but this failed leadership event was pivotal to my leadership
journey.

I think at the time, I was not aware of my ego so there is a very strong disconnect
between my ‘self’ and my ’Self’. More importantly, I was not aware of that space within
me where I can connect to my source and transcend the Voice of Fear, the Voice of
Judgment and the Voice of Cynicism so the conflict within the organization was very
disruptive and even traumatic.

What I learned from that failed leadership is that we have to find the leadership style
that suits us and I leaned the value of listening. I honestly think that I got way better at
leading because of that failed leadership experience.

I think these are my best and worst leadership moments, and these happened before I
got acquainted with Theory U, Bridging Leadership and other leadership and
communication frameworks, so I am excited to see what the future holds.