Reflections on the Philosophy of Man and the meaning of being a human

 Alicia Ivy M. Bongoyan, MBA

Abstract

            The Philosophy of Man explores the nature, purpose, and meaning of human existence. It seeks to answer fundamental questions about who we are, why we exist, and how we ought to live. This reflection examines the search for self-knowledge and authenticity as essential to understanding the human condition. It emphasizes that philosophy is not merely theoretical but personal—an invitation to reflect on one’s life, values, and relationships. By understanding oneself, one discovers one’s role in the greater order of being. The study of man is therefore the study of meaning, existence, and the continual pursuit of truth.          

Keywords: Human nature, Self-knowledge, Existence, Freedom, Meaning of life, Philosophy of man

Introduction

            Philosophy of Man is the study of the human person and the meaning of human life. It asks the most profound questions that shape our existence: Who am I? Why am I here? What is my purpose? In an age of modern distractions, people often focus on external achievements, wealth, and recognition, forgetting to reflect on their inner being. The study of man is a reminder that self-understanding is the foundation of all wisdom. As the Renaissance philosopher Petrarch said, “Men go to admire the heights of mountains, the course of rivers, the shores of the ocean, and the orbit of the stars, and neglect themselves.” This statement calls us back to the essence of philosophy: the journey within. To philosophize about man is to explore the mystery of life itself—to confront the questions that define our being and our purpose. In understanding the human person, we begin to uncover not only what we are but who we are meant to become.

Understanding the Philosophy of Man

Philosophy of Man does not simply describe human behavior or biology; it seeks to understand the meaning of being human. It studies the person as a whole—body, soul, intellect, emotion, and spirit. Science can tell us how we function, but philosophy seeks to answer why we exist. This discipline encourages reflection on the uniqueness of humanity. Among all creatures, only humans can ask questions about existence. We can reflect, reason, and choose. We are aware not only of the world but also of ourselves. This self-awareness allows us to shape our destiny. Philosophers like Aristotle viewed man as a rational being, capable of understanding and moral decision-making. St. Thomas Aquinas expanded on this, explaining that human beings participate in divine reason through intellect and free will. Thus, man is not merely a physical being but also a spiritual one—endowed with conscience and the ability to seek truth and goodness.

The Search for Meaning and Self-Knowledge

To philosophize is to embark on a journey toward self-knowledge. The ancient Greeks placed this principle at the heart of wisdom with the maxim “Know thyself.” For Socrates, understanding oneself is the first step toward living a good life. In modern times, people are often lost in the noise of daily life. We chase comfort, pleasure, or status, forgetting to ask whether these pursuits bring true fulfillment. The Philosophy of Man reminds us that authentic happiness comes not from possessions but from purpose. It is in discovering meaning that one transcends mere existence and begins to live fully. Psychologist Viktor Frankl, in his book 'Man’s Search for Meaning,' emphasizes that even in suffering, humans can find purpose. Meaning gives life direction, hope, and value—reminding us that we are more than our circumstances.

Human Freedom and Responsibility

Freedom is one of the central themes in the Philosophy of Man. To be human is to be free, but freedom is not the ability to do whatever one pleases—it is the power to choose what is right. True freedom involves moral responsibility. Every decision shapes our character and influences others. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that authentic freedom is rooted in truth and ordered toward the good. When freedom is detached from morality, it becomes destructive; but when guided by virtue, it leads to human flourishing. Through responsible freedom, humans become co-creators of a just and moral society. This principle teaches that our actions define us and that we must act in ways that affirm our dignity and the dignity of others.

Man in Relation to Others and the World

The human person is not an isolated being but one who exists in relation to others. We are social by nature, needing community and communication to flourish. Our identity is formed not only through introspection but also through encounters with family, friends, and society. This relationship calls us to empathy and moral responsibility. We discover our humanity when we recognize it in others. In this sense, love and compassion are essential expressions of what it means to be human. Moreover, our relationship with the world reveals our role as stewards of creation. We must care for the environment, promote justice, and contribute to the common good. Philosophy challenges us to see others not as competitors or strangers but as fellow travelers in the search for truth and happiness.

Man and Transcendence: The Search for God

Beyond the material and social aspects of life, man is a spiritual being who seeks transcendence. We possess a natural longing for what is eternal and infinite. This desire reflects our openness to the divine. Throughout history, philosophy and theology have shown that man’s search for truth ultimately leads to the search for God. In God, we find the ultimate source of meaning, purpose, and moral order. Even those who struggle with faith express this longing through their pursuit of love, justice, and beauty—all of which point toward the transcendent. To live philosophically is to live with awareness of this mystery and to orient one’s life toward what is ultimately good and true. This spiritual dimension affirms that man’s destiny is not confined to the material world but extends toward eternal fulfillment.

Personal Insight

Through this study, the student realizes that the Philosophy of Man is not just a subject but a mirror of human existence. It invites continuous reflection about life, purpose, and moral responsibility. The student recognizes that every human being carries both reason and emotion, and that true wisdom lies in balancing the two. Understanding the human person means appreciating the dignity that comes with freedom and the accountability that follows every decision. Moreover, the student learns that the search for meaning is a lifelong process—one that grows through experiences, relationships, and faith. Ultimately, the Philosophy of Man teaches the student that to be human is to strive for truth, to choose goodness, and to live with love.

Conclusion

The Philosophy of Man teaches that the greatest journey is the inward one—the discovery of self and the realization of our purpose in life. By understanding who we are, we learn how to live meaningfully with others and with God. It reminds us that philosophy is not confined to books or theories but is lived in our daily choices and relationships. In knowing ourselves, we find the wisdom to act with compassion, the courage to seek truth, and the strength to live authentically. The study of man, therefore, is not merely academic; it is a path toward a life of reflection, virtue, and love. Ultimately, the meaning of being human is found in our pursuit of goodness, our openness to others, and our relationship with the divine.

References

Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s Search for Meaning. Beacon Press.
 A foundational work exploring humanity’s search for purpose through meaning, suffering, and personal responsibility.

May, R. (1983). The Discovery of Being: Writings in Existential Psychology. W. W. Norton & Company.

Sartre, J.-P. (1943). Being and Nothingness. Washington Square Press.

Tillich, P. (1952). The Courage to Be. Yale University Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.

Smith, H. (2017). The Meaning of Life in World Religions. Philosophy East and West, 67(3), 541–556.

Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean Ethics. Hackett Publishing.

Aquinas, T. (1981). Summa Theologica. Christian Classics.

Augustine, St. (2008). Confessions. Oxford University Press.

Kierkegaard, S. (1980). The Concept of Anxiety. Princeton University Press.

Petrarch, F. (2020). Letters on Familiar Matters. Harvard University Press.

Socrates (as cited in Plato). (2002). Apology. Hackett Publishing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://boatcontinuing.com/q9h97sj5?key=23b279e99ed6a529a30f577cdce2aeb9

The Paradox of Freedom: The Self, Society, and the Teleological End

 Roberto B. Natividad, LPT, MBA

Divine Word College of Laoag

Abstract

This article explores the fundamental paradox of human freedom, the tension between the individual's inherent autonomy and the necessity of social and spiritual accountability. Drawing upon the philosophical traditions from the Medieval era (Aquinas) through the Enlightenment (Hobbes, Kant) to the existential critiques of the Nineteenth Century (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Scheler), this analysis synthesizes diverse views on selfhood, morality, and social control. The discussion is structured around three critical poles: the self as a project of radical autonomy (Kierkegaard’s subjectivity), the self as a subject of social determinism (Hobbes’ Leviathan and Marx’s critique), and the self as a relational and teleological being (Scheler’s Ordo Amoris and the Islamic view of accountability). The core argument posits that authentic selfhood is achieved not through isolation or the rejection of all constraints, but through the responsible affirmation of one’s unique destiny, anchored by moral duty and divine purpose.

Keywords: Selfhood, Freedom, Categorical Imperative, Ordo Amoris, Social Control, Authenticity, Determinism, Teleology

I. Introduction

A. Concern (Problem Statement)

The fundamental concern addressed in this article is the crisis of identity and moral certainty in the face of modern pluralism. Is the individual truly free, or is human action predetermined by external forces—whether biological, social, or historical? The discussion critically evaluates the tension between the self as an autonomous creator of values (e.g., Nietzsche) and the self as a relational being bound by inherent moral law and social necessity (e.g., Aquinas and Kant). Furthermore, the work probes the dangers of not being a self, particularly through "wearing a mask" or "absorption in a function," where the unique personal destiny is forfeited to conformity.

B. Purpose of Writing

The purpose of this article is to synthesize divergent philosophical anthropologies to construct a comprehensive, integrated understanding of the human person. It aims to clarify the pathways to authentic selfhood by contrasting views on morality, knowledge, and existence, ultimately seeking a coherent framework that honors both human freedom and spiritual accountability.

C. Objective of Writing

The objectives of this analysis are threefold:

1.      To delineate the philosophical arguments for and against human freedom, using the works of Hobbes, Spinoza, and Leibniz.

2.      To analyze the ethical systems (Utilitarianism, Categorical Imperative, Non-Formal Ethics of Value) that define moral action.

3.      To propose a model of selfhood rooted in relatedness and historical destiny, demonstrating that authentic personhood is achieved through responsible involvement rather than isolated reflection.

II. The Battleground of Freedom and Determinism

A. Radical Autonomy vs. The Will to Power

The Nineteenth Century challenged the foundational certainties of the West. Søren Kierkegaard introduced existentialism, asserting that “subjectivity is truth.” Truth, for him, is not an objective fact to be discovered, but a personal, passionate commitment. This perspective liberates the self from abstract systems but burdens it with the responsibility of decision-making, leading to dread (or anxiety) in the face of unforeseen outcomes.

Similarly, Frederick Nietzsche declared “God is dead,” not as a theological statement, but as a cultural observation that the source of objective morality had collapsed. He criticized Western values (Christianity and democracy) as "slave morality"—advocating pity and equality—and called for the emergence of the Übermensch, a master who creates his own values reflecting strength and independence. This is the ultimate expression of human self-creation, where man is the creator of values.

B. The Constraints of Will and Necessity

Contrasting this radical autonomy are the arguments for determinism and the inevitable constraints on the will. Arthur Schopenhauer, the great pessimist, saw life as a tragedy driven by the futile, irrational Will to Live, which leads only to suffering and constant wishing without satisfaction. The only respite is the temporary cessation of this will.

Baruch Spinoza offers a more nuanced determinism: freedom is not the ability to say "no" to necessity, but the ability to say "yes" through understanding (Deus sive Natura). Real freedom means acting according to the necessary nature of man, achieved through the "intellectual love of God" and the mastery of emotions through reason. The external world is governed by immutable laws, and human freedom lies only in realizing this necessity.

C. The Foundation of Moral Duty

The moral dimension of freedom is most rigorously addressed by Immanuel Kant. His Categorical Imperative (CI) demands that moral action be universalizable (what if everyone did this?) and that we treat persons as ends and never merely as means. This principle establishes morality not on feelings (Scheler) or consequences (Bentham), but on unconditional duty. An action is moral only if it stems from respect for the moral law, even if it is against our self-interest. This duty establishes a framework where every person is affirmed as a rational, autonomous being worthy of respect.

III. Selfhood: The Dynamic and Relational Person

A. Rejecting the Objective Self

The search for selfhood begins by rejecting the Path of Objectivity (Section 5.2.1). To ask "What am I?" and answer with generalities (e.g., "a rational animal") fails to capture the unique, unrepeatable essence of "Who am I?" Thinking of the self as a static thing or object distorts its true character, which is:

1.      Dynamic and Always Changing (Conversion): The self is constantly in a process of becoming, not fixed in a state of being.

2.      Relational: Unlike an isolated object, the self is caught up in relationships (family, career, God), which are essential for its existence.

B. The Priority of Love (Ordo Amoris)

In counterpoint to Kant's formalism, Max Scheler argues that the human heart, the "seat of love," accounts for the essence of human existence (ens amans). For Scheler, feelings and love have a logic of their own and are conjoined to experiences of value. His "ordo amoris" (order of love) suggests that values are ranked and intuitively "felt" before they are rationally chosen. The moral act is founded in the heart's spontaneous "leaning" toward a higher value (pre-rational "preferring"), with the value of the holy/divine at the apex, superseding sensible, pragmatic, and life values. This shows that the moral life is lived primarily from the heart's deep order, not from a rationally contrived set of external rules.

C. The Person as Relatedness and Historical Destiny

The subjective self is best understood as relatedness and historical destiny (Sections 7.5-7.6). I am a product of my past, yet I move decisively in the present toward my future goals and vocation.

·         Relatedness: My existence as a person is owed to the people in my life (family, friends, God). A true personal relationship is a living dialogue that recognizes the other as a unique subject endowed with unconditional worth (not an object of use or judgment). This relationship gives continuous support and an added dimension of meaning to my life.

·         Purpose (Teleology): Selfhood is not just being, but becoming what I am "meant to be." This purpose is found in the "reaching out"—the involvement with career, causes, and commitments that ultimately define my existence. As a person of faith, this destiny is inherently tied to my vocation and participation in the divine love (Scheler).

IV. Society and the Fulfillment of the Person

A. Social Contract and Fulfillment

Though society can be pictured as oppressive, man chooses to live in it because it represents full human existence (Section 8.3). The social contract—the compromise of freedom for security—raises life above a merely animal level. Society contributes to the fulfillment of man by providing:

1.      Communication and Morality: We learn language, morality, and right ways to relate through social interaction (the jungle boy analogy).

2.      Source of Meaning: Meaning is derived from relationships, values, and roles (mother, teacher, leader). These roles, though determined by social context, provide a sense of purpose and structure.

B. The Danger of Alienation

The Marxist critique, however, offers a powerful counterpoint: society, under a capitalist structure, becomes a source of alienation. Karl Marx viewed the essence of man as the ensemble of social relationships, not the individual. He argued that the modern industrial worker is alienated from the product of his labor and from his own species-being. In this critique, religion acts as the "opium of the people," dulling the pain of real suffering and preventing the oppressed from seeing the necessity of revolutionary change. Marx preferred freedom not only from capitalism but also from God and religion, visualizing a human world created solely for material prosperity.

C. Reconciling Freedom and Order (The Theological Imperative)

The final reflection on social control resolves the tension: while society is imperfect (Section 8.3.3) and its structures can impose limits, rules are not inherently evil. When rooted in justice, love, and the dignity of the human person (Kant/Aquinas), they serve to protect life and direct freedom toward the common good. The choice of who controls one’s life—God, society, or the self—must be answered by the independent, God-fearing, and family-oriented person who affirms God’s sovereignty while exercising responsible freedom within the context of relationship.

V. Conclusion

The self is an irreducible paradox: a unique subject who achieves freedom not by escaping responsibility, but by wholeheartedly embracing it. Authentic selfhood is the continuous, historical process of becoming—a process where the individual courageously:

1.      Affirms Identity: Rejects the safety of the mask or the limits of a single function.

2.      Chooses Purpose: Directs life toward its teleological end (vocation/calling).

3.      Acts Morally: Governs actions not by pleasure or utility (Bentham), but by duty and genuine compassion (Kant/Schopenhauer).

4.      Lives Relationally: Grounds identity in authentic love (ordo amoris) and accountability to God and others.

The profound philosophical and theological task remains to navigate these competing demands, ensuring that the necessary structures of society serve to realize, not suffocate, the divine potential inherent in the human person.

References

(Simulated APA 7th Edition Format)

Aquinas, T. (1947). Summa Theologiae (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Benziger Bros.

Bentham, J. (2000). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. (J. H. Burns & H.L.A. Hart, Eds.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1789)

Hobbes, T. (1994). Leviathan: With selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. (E. Curley, Ed.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1651)

Kant, I. (2002). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. (A. Wood, Ed. & Trans.). Yale University Press. (Original work published 1785)

Kierkegaard, S. (1989). The Sickness unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening. (H. V. Hong & E. H. Hong, Eds. & Trans.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1849)

Locke, J. (1997). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. (R. Woolhouse, Ed.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1690)

Marx, K. (1978). A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. The Marx-Engels Reader (2nd ed., pp. 53-65). (R. Tucker, Ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. (Original work published 1844)

Nietzsche, F. (2002). Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. (R. P. Horstmann & J. P. Hoster, Eds.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1886)

Scheler, M. (1973). Formalism in Ethics and Non-Formal Ethics of Values: A New Attempt Toward the Foundation of an Ethical Personalism. (M. S. Frings & R. L. Funk, Trans.). Northwestern University Press. (Original work published 1913)

Schopenhauer, A. (2010). The World as Will and Representation. (J. Norman, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1818)

Spinoza, B. (1992). Ethics. (E. Curley, Ed.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1677)

 

Understanding and Leading Gen Z Through the Lens of the Philosophy of Man

 By Grace Turqueza-Rabang

Schools Division of Ilocos Norte

Abstract

The entry of Generation Z (Gen Z) into the workforce marks a significant generational shift, with the landscape of leadership undergoing a transformation. Bringing in new traits, values, and work expectations, leaders must understand this generation and adapt leadership styles to meet them where they are. Gen Zs are known to be tech-savvy and digitally fluent, value authenticity and transparency, are independent but collaborative, seek continuous growth and learning, prefer feedback and open communication, and care about mental health and work-life balance. Martin Buber’s I-Thou philosophy and Aristotle’s virtue ethics are important philosophies to consider in understanding and leading Gen Z. Leaders must lead with authenticity and transparency, must encourage participation and dialogue, integrate tech tools for collaboration and adapt flexible work hours, if possible, and advocate for work-life balance to have a creative, loyal, and powerful agents of positive change into the workplace of this generation.

Keywords: Gen Z, philosophy of man, leadership, Aristotle, Martin Buber, workplace

Introduction

The entry of Generation Z (Gen Z) into the workforce marks a significant generational shift, introducing new dynamics and expectations in the workplace culture (Schroth, 2019). According to Xueyun et al (2023), by 2050, Gen Z (aged 18-28) is anticipated to surpass millennials in numbers. Understanding their workplace dynamics and the exploration of effective leadership styles are imperative, considering that a significant portion of millennials are projected to retire by 2050.

Gen Z are individuals born approximately between 1995 and 2010 (Goh & Lee, 2018). They come after the Generation Y, people born between the 1980s to early 1990s, who are sometimes referred to as Gen Y or the Millennials.  While Gen Z shares many traits with the Millennial Generation, they also bring in new patterns of behavior. Managers today not only have to understand how to best manage youthful, inexperienced employees, but also the unique characteristics of the generation shaped by their experiences (Schroth, 2019).

Different generations have experienced the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in varied ways (Schawbel, 2020). However, according to Goh and Baum (2021), it is evident that Generation Z’s experience of the pandemic was overwhelmingly negative, primarily due to the challenging transition into adulthood, both personally and professionally. This transition was fraught with difficulties and significantly affected their mental well-being (Xueyun et al, 2023). To better lead this generation of workforce, leaders must understand their traits, behavior ,and culture that they bring with them in the workplace.

Key Traits of Gen Z in the Workplace

Gen Zers are known to be tech-savvy, individualistic, and socially aware. Unlike previous generations, Gen Z has grown up in an era of rapid technological advancement and societal change, resulting in distinct values and expectations toward work (Tulgan, 2019). They are the generations who are known to be always on their phone, always updated with the latest technology. The research conducted by Lazányi and Bilan (2017) showed that technology played a crucial role in enhancing the productivity of Gen Z, who relied on digital tools to collaborate, communicate, and manage their work time efficiently.

According to Francis and Hoefel (2018), Gen Zers value individual expression and avoid labels. They mobilize themselves for a variety of causes. They believe profoundly in the efficacy of dialogue to solve conflicts and improve the world. Finally, they make decisions and relate to institutions in a highly analytical and pragmatic way.

Research conducted by Raslie and Ting (2021) described that Gen Z had distinct work expectations characterized by a desire for frequent and instantaneous feedback, a preference for open communication, and a strong emphasis on work-life balance and meaningful engagement in their roles. This explains the feedback from leaders that Gen Zers are vocal and straightforward. They usually say anything they have in their minds, contrary to other generations who have to think twice or remain silent before they speak up.

Gen Zers seek meaning and authenticity. According to Xueyun et. al. (2023), Gen Z work expectations were fundamentally shaped by their desire for supportive work environments, job security, and clear opportunities for career development, which collectively played a crucial role in influencing intention to stay with an organization and reducing the possibility of ‘quiet quitting’.

Philosophy of Man Insights

Understanding and leading the Generation Z in the workplace requires a deep understanding of their traits, personalities, and behavior. Martin Buber’s “I-Thou” philosophy provides a deeply human-centered perspective on leadership and connection.

Gen Zers value authenticity, inclusion, purpose, and deep connection. Viewing them through Martin Buber’s I-Thou lens helps leaders see them not just as “workers” or “employees”, but as persons with lived experiences, ideas, and emotions. With the I-Thou approach, leaders recognize the personhood behind the employee, not just their function. Others view Gen Zs as lazy and don’t last long in the company. But a leader viewing it through the lens of Martin Buber’s philosophy will understand that they are individuals seeking meaning, growth, and belonging, so they tend to hop from one company to another if their needs are not met. To retain this brilliant generation, a leader must adapt to their needs and adjust their leadership styles.

I-Thou relationship thrives on reciprocity, mutuality, and authenticity. These are the things Gen Z values highly. They value transparency, open communication, and mutual participation. A leader with an I-Thou framework is transparent about challenges and company goals, will engage in a genuine dialogue through open conversations, and encourage sharing or contribution of ideas to make them feel seen and valued.

In addition, Generation Z values authenticity, integrity, and ethical leadership. These traits align perfectly with Aristotle’s virtue ethics. He believed that becoming a virtuous person is consistently doing good habits repeatedly. Gen Zs respect leaders who walk their talk. A leader who practices Aristotle’s philosophy is ethical and is habitually practices virtues such as courage, honesty, temperance, and justice.

Aristotle’s virtue ethics, which focuses on moral character and ethical action, will develop integrity, purpose, and balanced leadership – something valued highly by the Gen Zers.

Martin Buber’s I-Thou philosophy and Aristotle’s virtue ethics are important philosophies to inform in understanding, dealing, and leading Generation Z.

Leading Gen Z

Dearlove and Humphries (2024) stated that the landscape of leadership is undergoing a profound transformation with the entry of Gen Z in the workforce. They say that leading the Gen Z requires a constant effort because, as employees, they are different from the older generations – Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. This generation is distinguished by unique experiences and characteristics shaped by rapid technological advancements and impactful global events. Gen Z is often described as ‘digital natives’ because of extensive engagement with technology and is entering the workforce during a period of significant transformation (Deloitte Insights, 2017).

Leading the Gen Zers is both challenging and transforming. The leader of an office composed of different generations must be able to implement different leadership styles unique to every individual or generation he/she leads.

A leader must lead with authenticity and transparency. When leaders are transparent about challenges, open about feedback, and honest about company goals, Gen Zers respond with engagement and loyalty. Research conducted by Pandita and Khatwani (2022) showed that the supervisor’s support played a crucial role in keeping Gen Z engaged and motivated. The research emphasized the need to create an environment where Gen Z could thrive and contribute to future business success. 

Leaders must encourage participation and dialogue. They appreciate collaborative leadership. Dolot's (2018) research findings revealed that this generation favors collaborative leaders who provide continuous feedback and avoid overly hierarchical structures. In addition, they value constant learning and skill development over traditional hierarchy.

Celestin and Vanitha (2020) recommend that leaders create opportunities for growth and advancement to fulfill Gen Z’s ambition and career-oriented mindset, thereby improving retention and fostering a culture of continuous development. They must guide values and characters, not just skills. Leaders who mentor, not just supervise, inspire loyalty among Gen Zers.

Lastly, Gen Zs are digitally fluent and prefer hybrid or adaptable work setups and place a high value on work-life balance. Leaders must integrate tech tools for collaboration and allow hybrid or flexible work options. Allow the Gen Zs to do the work in their own terms, focus on the output, instead of micromanaging time. The study of Hess & Jepsen (2016) indicated that Gen Z is notably inclined toward achieving a meaningful work-life balance, often placing it above financial compensation. According to the study, this generation values flexible work schedules and mental well-being initiatives, both of which are seen as essential for job satisfaction. A tech-savvy, flexible workplace attracts and retains Gen Z talent.

Conclusion

Generation Z is slowly dominating the workplace. As the workforce shifts from the old generations (Baby Boomers and Millennials) to the new generation (Generation Z), given their unique values and work expectations, companies and leaders must adapt and be open to the challenges of leading them.

To understand and lead Gen Z, leaders must move from transaction to relational leadership – from I-It to I-Thou. Gen Z needs leaders who balance individuality and community. When they feel genuinely seen, heard, and valued, they respond with authenticity, creativity, and commitment.

True leadership is human-centered and meaningful. Aristotle’s virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of integrity, wisdom, and ethical leadership to cultivate the moral character and create a respectful and loyal Generation Z workforce.

By combining Buber’s relational approach and Aristotle’s virtue-centered perspective, leadership becomes personal and purposeful. In this way, leading Gen Z transforms from a challenge into an opportunity to navigate and mold a generation of future leaders and build a workplace grounded in respect, moral responsibility and shared accountability.

References

Celestin M. & Vanitha N. (2020). Gen Z in the Workforce: Strategies for Leading the Next Generation, 5 th International Conference on Recent Trends in Arts, Science, Engineering & Technology, Organized By DK International Research Foundation, ISBN Number: 978-81-947057-3-4, Page Number 127- 134.

Dearlove, D. & Humphries, L. (2024). Connectedness: How the Best Leaders Create Authentic Human Connection in a Disconnected World. 

Deloitte Insights. (2017). Generation Z enters the workforce with generational and technological challenges in entry-level jobs. Deloitte Insights. Retrieved from

https://www.deloitte.com/insights

Dolot, A. (2018). Leadership preferences among Generation Z. Journal of International Studies,

11(3), 48-58.

Francis, T., & Hoefel, F. (2018). True Gen’: Generation Z and its implications for companies.

McKinsey & Company, 12(2), 1-10.

Goh, E. & Baum, T. (2021). Job perceptions of Generation Z hotel employees towards working In Covid-19 quarantine hotels: The role of meaningful work. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(5), 1688–1710. https://doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJCHM- 11- 2020- 1295

Goh, E., & Lee, C. (2018). A workforce to be reckoned with: The emerging pivotal Generation Z hospitality workforce. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 73, 20-28.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.016

Hess, N., & Jepsen, D. (2016). Work-life balance expectations of Generation Z: A qualitative case study in Australia. Australian Journal of Management, 41(3), 344-362.

Lazányi, K., & Bilan, Y. (2017). Generetion Z on the labour market – Do they trust others within their workplace?. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 16(1), 78–93.https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2017.16.1.07

Pandita, D., & Khatwani, R. (2022). Creating sustainable engagement practices for generation Z: Role of CSR in organizations. Journal of Statistics Applications and Probability, 11(1), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.18576/jsap/110118

Raslie, H., & Ting, S.H. (2021). Gen Y and gen Z communication style. Estudios de Economía  Aplicada, 39(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.25115/eea.v39i1.4268

Ruiz Vázquez, M., Rodríguez González, F., & Trujillo Reyes, J. (2024). Personality and leadership style in generation z: A quantitative study in a higher education institution in Mexico. Intangible Capital, 20(1), 170-192. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2383

Schawbel, D. (2020). How COVID-19 has impacted different generations of workers. Retrieved from www. linkedin.com/pulse/how-covid-19-has-impacted-different- generationsworkers-dan-schawbel

Schroth, H. (2019). Are you ready for Gen Z in the workplace? California Management Review, 61(3), 5-18.

Tulgan, B. (2019). The art of being indispensable at work: Win influence, beat over commitment, and get the right things done. Harvard Business Review Press 

Xueyun, Z., Al Mamun, A., Masukujjaman, M., Rahman, M. K., Gao, J., & Yang, Q. (2023). Modeling the significance of organizational conditions on quiet quitting intention among Gen Z workforce in an emerging economy. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42591-3

Zahra, Y., Handoyo, S., & Fajrianthi, F. (2025). A comprehensive overview of Generation Z in the workplace: Insights from a scoping review. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 51, 11. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v51i0.2263