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

 

 

: Finding Ourselves: A Human Journey Through Heidegger's World

 Danlord M. Malubag, MBA

Divine Word College of Laoag

Abstract

Ever feel like you're just floating through life, going through the motions without really connecting to what's happening around you? This paper is like a cozy conversation about the ideas of Martin Heidegger, a philosopher who nudges us to stop, breathe, and rethink our place in the world. We'll take a friendly stroll through his thoughts on Dasein (that's our "being-there," our way of existing), Being itself, and what it truly means to be human. Forget stuffy, complicated theories – we're aiming for real-life "aha!" moments. We'll explore Heidegger's perspectives on humanity, technology, and the amazing power of language, hoping to uncover some insights that can help us find deeper meaning and a more authentic path in our own everyday lives. It's all about finding our way back to ourselves, to what truly matters, in a world that often pulls us in a million different directions.

Keywords

Heidegger, Dasein, Being, Existence, Human Experience, Technology, Language, Philosophy, Authenticity, Self-Discovery

Introduction

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) wasn't just a philosopher with a lot of big words; he was a rebel, a deep thinker who dared to question the very foundations of how we live today. Imagine him as someone who stepped away from the constant noise and chaos of modern life and asked a simple, yet profound question: "What does it really mean to be human in this world?" Born in a small, quiet town in Germany, Heidegger spent his life wrestling with these fundamental questions about existence, truth, and our connection to the world around us. His most famous work, Being and Time (1927), isn't just a book filled with complex ideas; it's an invitation to embark on a personal adventure, a quest to understand ourselves, our purpose, and our place in the grand scheme of things.

Heidegger noticed that we often get so caught up in the whirlwind of daily life – our jobs, our social media feeds, our endless to-do lists – that we lose touch with what truly matters. We forget to ask ourselves, "Am I living a life that feels authentic, that aligns with my values, that truly reflects who I am?" (Heidegger, 1962). In a world that's increasingly dominated by technology, consumerism, and the pressure to conform, Heidegger wanted to help us rediscover the essence of being human, to find a way to live with intention, purpose, and a deep sense of connection to ourselves and the world around us.

This paper is your invitation to join us on this journey of exploration. We'll unpack Heidegger's sometimes-challenging ideas – Dasein, Being, and all the rest – not as complicated theories to memorize, but as practical tools for understanding your own life, your own experiences, and your own potential. We'll explore his thoughts on humanity, technology (and its often-unseen impact on our lives), and the incredible power of language to shape our thoughts and perceptions. Our hope is that, by the end of this journey, you'll have a few new insights, a fresh perspective, and a renewed sense of purpose, helping you to light your own path toward a more meaningful, fulfilling, and authentic existence. Think of it as a friendly conversation, a chance to pause, reflect, and maybe even rediscover a little bit of yourself along the way.

Heidegger's Views on Dasein: You, Me, and Our Place in the World

Imagine Dasein not as a stuffy, academic term, but as a mirror reflecting you – a unique individual who's aware of their own existence, constantly wondering, questioning, and searching for meaning in the world. Dasein, often translated as "being-there," is Heidegger's way of describing the special and unique way that we humans exist in the world. We're not just objects or things; we're beings who care about our existence, who are driven by a deep desire to understand our purpose, our place, and our potential. As Charles Guignon (1993) so eloquently puts it, Dasein is fundamentally defined by its "understanding of Being," its innate ability to grasp the significance and meaning of its own life.

Heidegger believed that we're always "being-in-the-world," intricately and deeply connected to everything around us – our families, our friends, our communities, our environments. Think about your own life: your relationships, your work, your passions, your hobbies. These aren't just separate activities or things you do; they're all woven together, forming the very fabric of who you are. As Hubert Dreyfus (1991) so clearly explains, this "being-in-the-world" isn't simply about our physical location; it's about our existential connection to our environment, our deep and inseparable relationship with the world around us. And just like Dasein, we're constantly evolving, shaped by our past experiences, influenced by our present circumstances, and always reaching towards our future possibilities. We are beings in constant motion, never fully defined, always open to new experiences, new relationships, and new understandings (Heidegger, 1962).

Heidegger's Analysis of Human Existence: Living Authentically

Ever feel like you're just living on autopilot, going through the motions, doing what's expected of you without really thinking about what you truly want or believe? Heidegger called this state "fallenness" – a condition where we lose ourselves in the crowd, blindly following the rules, norms, and expectations of society without questioning their validity or their impact on our lives. In this state, we become "they-selves," living according to what others think we should be, instead of listening to and honoring our own inner voice, our own values, and our own unique desires (Heidegger, 1962).

But thankfully, there's another way to live – a path that Heidegger called "authenticity." This means taking full responsibility for your own life, facing your fears and insecurities head-on, and making conscious choices that align with your true self, your deepest values, and your most heartfelt desires. It's about understanding that life is precious, that time is limited, and that every moment is an opportunity to live with intention and purpose. As Michael Zimmerman (1990) so beautifully argues, authenticity involves embracing our mortality, accepting the limitations of our human existence, and recognizing the fleeting nature of our time on Earth. By facing our own mortality, we can truly appreciate the gift of life and choose to live each day with greater awareness, gratitude, and intention.

Heidegger on Technology: Friend or Foe?

In his thought-provoking and often-controversial essay, "The Question Concerning Technology" (1977), Heidegger challenges us to think critically and deeply about the role of technology in our modern lives. Is technology simply a neutral tool that we use to make our lives easier, more efficient, and more convenient? Or does technology actually shape the way we see the world, the way we interact with each other, and even the way we understand ourselves? Heidegger worried that modern technology could subtly and insidiously transform everything into a resource to be exploited, manipulated, and controlled, leading to a pervasive sense of disconnection, alienation, and meaninglessness in our lives. He argues that technology can "enframe" the world, reducing the richness and complexity of reality into a "standing-reserve," a collection of resources to be used and consumed (Heidegger, 1977).

Think about how we often use our smartphones – constantly checking notifications, mindlessly scrolling through social media feeds, always connected to the digital world, but perhaps less connected to ourselves, to our loved ones, and to the present moment. As Albert Borgmann (1984) insightfully suggests, technology can create a "device paradigm" that isolates us from genuine experiences, meaningful relationships, and a deep appreciation for the simple wonders of the natural world. Heidegger encourages us to find a healthy balance, to use technology in a way that enhances our lives, without allowing it to overshadow what truly matters: authentic human connection, creative expression, a sense of wonder and awe, and a deep appreciation for the beauty and mystery of the world around us.

Heidegger and Language: The Words We Use, the World We See

Heidegger held a profound belief that language is far more than just a tool for communication; he saw it as the very "house of Being," the dwelling place where truth resides and where our understanding of the world takes shape. Language, according to Heidegger, shapes our thoughts, influences our feelings, and ultimately determines how we perceive and interpret the world around us. As Gadamer (1976) so wisely explains, language isn't simply a way to represent a pre-existing reality; it's the very medium through which reality reveals itself to us, the lens through which we come to understand ourselves and our place in the world. When we use language with awareness, intention, and a deep sense of responsibility, we can gain profound insights into ourselves, our relationships, and the intricate workings of the universe.

Think about the transformative power of stories, the evocative beauty of poems, and the life-changing potential of heartfelt conversations. They can transport us to different realities, awaken powerful emotions within us, and help us make sense of our experiences, our challenges, and our triumphs. Heidegger encourages us to listen deeply to language, to be open to its subtle nuances, its hidden meanings, and its inherent ambiguities, and to allow it to reveal new possibilities, new perspectives, and new understandings that we might never have discovered on our own. He believed that language can be a source of profound truth, a way of connecting with the very essence of Being, and a pathway to living a more authentic, meaningful, and fulfilling life (Heidegger, 1971).

Conclusion

So, where does all this lead us? Well, Heidegger's philosophy isn't about handing you a neat little instruction manual for life. It's more like giving you a compass and a map, then gently nudging you to explore the terrain of your own existence. He invites us to question everything, to challenge the assumptions we've blindly accepted, and to dare to live with greater authenticity, intention, and purpose. By wrestling with his profound (and sometimes perplexing) ideas about Dasein, Being, technology, and language, we can begin to unravel the mysteries of what it truly means to be human in this messy, beautiful, and often overwhelming world.

It's not about finding all the answers, because honestly, who has those? It's about embracing the journey of self-discovery, about being willing to stumble, to learn, to grow, and to connect with something deeper than the surface level of our daily routines. It's about recognizing that we're all works in progress, constantly evolving, constantly becoming. And that's okay, maybe even wonderful.

While Heidegger's work can feel like climbing a steep mountain at times, it offers invaluable insights and practical guidance for anyone who's searching for a more meaningful, fulfilling, and authentic life. It's about finding our way back to ourselves – to our core values, to our passions, to our sense of wonder, and to our deep and abiding connection with the world around us. It's about creating a life that feels true to who we are, not who we think we should be.

And that journey, ultimately, is what makes life worth living. It's what gives our existence meaning, what allows us to leave our own unique and lasting mark on the world, and what enables us to say, with a sense of peace and contentment, "I lived. I loved. I learned. And I did it my way.

In the end, Heidegger's message is one of hope and empowerment. He reminds us that we have the power to shape our own lives, to create our own meaning, and to live with greater authenticity and purpose. So, take that compass, unfold that map, and start exploring. The world is waiting, and so is your own unique potential.

 

References

Borgmann, A. (1984). Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life: A Philosophical Inquiry. University of Chicago Press.

Dreyfus, H. L. (1991). Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I. MIT Press.

Gadamer, H. G. (1976). Philosophical Hermeneutics. University of California Press.

Guignon, C. B. (1993). The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger. Cambridge University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Blackwell.

Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, Language, Thought. Harper & Row.

Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays. Harper & Row.

Zimmerman, M. E. (1990). Heidegger's Confrontation with Modernity: Technology, Politics, and Art. Indiana University Press.

Jean -Jacques Rousseau and the general will

 Jennifer C. Bungubung

 Divine World College of Laoag

Abstract 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's concept of the General Will explores the relationship between individual freedom and collective power. This paper looks at Rousseau's vision of a society guided by the General Will. It explores how this concept aims to strike a balance between individual freedom and the community's needs. The paper also investigates how to define and enforce the General Will. It discusses the potential for it to act as a unifying force, along with the risk of it becoming a tool for oppression. By examining the tensions in Rousseau's theory, this paper offers a critical view of its lasting relevance in today's conversations about Democracy, legitimacy, and political authority.

Keywords: General Will, Common Good, Personal Interest. Lawgiver, Citizen, Collective responsibility, Democracy

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Swiss-born philosopher, writer, and political theorist whose treatises and novels inspired the leaders of the French Revolution and the Romantic generation (Cranston, M., and Duignan, B., 2025). He was born to Isaac Rousseau and Suzanne Bernard in Geneva on June 28, 1712. His mother died only a few days later, on July 7, and his only sibling, an older brother, ran away from home when Rousseau was still a child. Rousseau was therefore brought up mainly by his father, a clockmaker, with whom he read ancient Greek and Roman literature, such as the Lives of Plutarch, at an early age. His father got into a quarrel with a French captain and, at the risk of imprisonment, left Geneva for the rest of his life. Rousseau stayed behind and was cared for by an uncle, who sent him and his cousin to study in the village of Bosey. In 1725, Rousseau was apprenticed to an engraver and began to learn the trade. Although he did not detest the work, he thought his master to be violent and tyrannical. He therefore left Geneva in 1728 and fled to Annecy. Here he met Louise de Warens, who was instrumental in his conversion to Catholicism, which forced him to forfeit his Genevan citizenship (in 1754, he would make a return to Geneva and publicly convert back to Calvinism). Rousseau's relationship with Mme. de Warens lasted for several years and eventually became romantic. During this time, he earned money through secretarial, teaching, and musical jobs. (Fieser and Dowden, 1995)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau remains an essential figure in the history of philosophy, both because of his contributions to political philosophy and moral psychology and on account of his influence on later thinkers. Rousseau's own view of most philosophy and philosophers was firmly negative, seeing them as post-hoc rationalizers of self-interest, as apologists for various forms of tyranny, and as playing a role in the alienation of the modern individual from humanity's natural impulse to compassion. The concern that dominates Rousseau's work is to find a way of preserving human freedom in a world where people are increasingly dependent on one another to satisfy their needs. This concern has two dimensions: material and psychological, with the latter being more important. In the modern world, human beings derive their sense of identity and value from the opinions of others, which Rousseau sees as corrosive of freedom and destructive of individual authenticity. In his mature work, he principally explores two routes to achieving and protecting freedom: the first is a political one aimed at constructing institutions that permit and foster the coexistence of free and equal citizens in a community where they themselves are sovereign; the second is a project for child development and education that nurtures autonomy and avoids the genesis of the most destructive forms of self-interest. However, although Rousseau believes that the coexistence of human beings in relations of equality and freedom is possible, he is consistently and overwhelmingly pessimistic that humanity will escape a dystopia of alienation, oppression, and unfreedom. In addition to his contributions to philosophy, Rousseau was active as a composer, a music theorist, a pioneer of modern autobiography, a novelist, and a botanist. Rousseau's appreciation of the wonders of nature and his emphasis on the importance of feeling and emotion made him a significant influence on and anticipator of the romantic movement. To a considerable extent, the interests and concerns that mark his philosophical work also inform these other activities, and Rousseau's contributions in ostensibly non-philosophical fields often serve to illuminate his philosophical commitments and arguments. (Malpas, 2012)

Rousseau’s contributions to political philosophy are scattered among various works, most notable of which are the Discourse on Inequality, the Discourse on Political Economy, The Social Contract, and Considerations on the Government of Poland. However, many of his other works, both major and minor, contain passages that amplify or illuminate the political ideas in those works. His central doctrine in politics is that a state can be legitimate only if it is guided by the “general will” of its members. This idea finds its most detailed treatment in The Social Contract.

 

The Social Contract and the Birth of the General Will

 

            Rousseau starts The Social Contract with his famous statement: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” He believed that people are naturally good and free in their original state of nature, but they become corrupted by society and inequality. To regain freedom and create a fair political order, Rousseau proposed a new kind of social agreement, the social contract. In this contract, individuals agree together to form a community. This community is guided not by personal desires or private interests but by the general will, which represents the shared will of the people focused on the common good. By accepting this collective will, Rousseau argued, individuals do not lose their freedom. Instead, they find it in a higher form: the freedom of moral and civic autonomy.

Rousseau’s account of the general will contains unclear points that have sparked interest among commentators since its first publication. The central tension lies between a democratic view, where the general will is simply what citizens decide together in their sovereign assembly, and another interpretation where the general will represents the common interest of citizens, existing apart from what any individual actually wants (Bertram, 2012). Additionally, there is the perspective of the general will as the will of individual citizens directed toward the common good (Canon, 2022). Each of these interpretations finds some basis in Rousseau's writings and has had an impact. Modern ideas about Democracy often refer to Rousseau's discussion in Book 2, Chapter 3 of The Social Contract. These discussions typically start with Condorcet's jury theorem, viewing democratic processes as a way to discover the truth about the public interest. They then interpret the general will as a means of discussion aimed at outcomes that meet individual preferences and justify the authority of the state. The tension between the "democratic" and "transcendental" views can be lessened if we understand Rousseau to be suggesting that, under the right conditions and procedures, citizen legislators will tend to agree on laws that reflect their common interest. However, when those conditions and procedures are lacking, the state inherently lacks legitimacy. This interpretation leads to a view similar to a posteriori philosophical anarchism. This view suggests that while it is theoretically possible for a state to have legitimate authority over its citizens, all actual states—and especially those we encounter in the modern world—are likely to fail in meeting the criteria for legitimacy.

Rousseau argues that for the general will to be truly general, it must come from everyone and apply to everyone. This idea has both critical and formal aspects. Formally, Rousseau states that the law must be general in application and universal in scope. The law cannot name specific individuals, and it must apply to all people within the state. Rousseau believes that this condition will lead citizens, even when considering their own private interests, to support laws that protect the common interest fairly and that are not overly burdensome or intrusive. However, for this to happen, citizens' situations must be broadly similar to one another. In a state with diverse lifestyles and occupations, significant cultural diversity, or high economic inequality, the impact of the laws will not be the same for everyone. In these cases, a citizen may struggle to view the general will by only imagining how general and universal laws affect their own situation. (Rousseau, 2010)

 

Understanding the General Will

 

 The general will represent what is best for the whole community. In contrast, the will of all adds up to individual preferences. The general will aim for the common good and go beyond personal or group interests. It is not just based on majority opinion; it comes from the collective reasoning of citizens who prioritise the community's welfare over their own self-interest. Rousseau's idea questions the belief that freedom means doing whatever one pleases. For him, true freedom is following a law that one creates for oneself. This law reflects the general will. As a result, individuals become both the authors and subjects of the rules they follow, ensuring equality and legitimacy in governance.

For Rousseau, however, the general will is not an abstract ideal. It is instead the will actually held by the people in their capacity as citizens. Rousseau’s conception is thus political and differs from the more universal conception of the general will held by Diderot. To partake in the general will means, for Rousseau, to reflect upon and to vote based on one's sense of justice. Individuals become conscious of their interests as citizens, according to Rousseau, and thus of the interest of the republic as a whole, not through spirited discussions but, on the contrary, by following their personal conscience in the "silence of the passions." In this sense, the public assembly does not debate so much as disclose the general will of the people. Rousseau argued that the general will is intrinsically right, but he also criticised in some works (mainly in his Discours sur les sciences et les arts (1750; Discourse on the Sciences and Arts) the rationalist elevation of reason above feelings. This has provoked scholarly debate about the rational and affective dimensions of the general will. On the one hand, the general will reflects the rational interest of the individual (as a citizen) as well as that of the people as a whole. On the other hand, the general will not be purely rational because it emerges out of an attachment and even a love for one's political community. (Munro, 2013)

 

The Function of the Lawgiver and the Citizen

 

Rousseau placed a strong emphasis on citizens' active involvement in forming the general will. Active citizens who act out of civic virtue and prioritise the common good over their own interests are necessary for a decent society. Additionally, he developed the concept of the Lawgiver, a wise founder who assists the populace in determining the collective will and creating rules that serve the common welfare. However, the people themselves always retain sovereignty once the laws are put in place.

In Rousseau’s The Social Contract, the roles of the Lawgiver and the Citizen are key to understanding how the General Will works within a political community. Each has a distinct but connected role in shaping and maintaining a fair and stable society. In fact, the Lawgiver has both "a task which is beyond human powers and a non-existent authority for its execution." And they must also speak to the people in terms they can understand, for it takes good government to create "the social spirit" that makes people understand, appreciate, and perpetuate good government (Rousseau, 2020)

The Lawgiver holds a unique, almost sacred place in Rousseau’s political theory. He is not a ruler or magistrate but a visionary founder who helps create the fundamental laws and institutions that express the General Will. The Lawgiver’s job is to turn the people’s collective wishes for the common good into a clear set of laws. However, the Lawgiver does not impose his own will; instead, he helps the people see their true interests and form a moral and political community. Rousseau likens the Lawgiver to an architect who builds the foundation on which the state can last.

On the other hand, the Citizen represents the active member of the sovereign body. For Rousseau, citizens are both the creators and subjects of the laws—they make the laws as part of the collective sovereign and follow them as individuals. This dual role captures Rousseau’s principle of freedom: by obeying laws they have made for themselves, citizens are not controlled by others but governed by their own shared will.

 The harmony between the Lawgiver and the Citizen ensures that the General Will shows the true interests of everyone. The Lawgiver establishes the moral and institutional framework, while the citizens support it through their engagement and commitment to the common good. When both fulfill their roles, society achieves legitimacy, equality, and moral unity—these are the ideals central to Rousseau’s vision of political life.

 

Remarks and Impact

 

Rousseau's general will theory has come under attack for being idealistic and even dangerous if misinterpreted. Others have argued that it could be used to justify authoritarian rule in the name of the "common good." However, Rousseau intended to promote equality and collective freedom, not tyranny. He aimed to create a moral society where all members share the responsibility for the principles and rules that shape them.

Despite these debates, Rousseau's impact remains strong. His demand for moral and civic equality still resonates in modern talks about Democracy, social justice, and participatory governance. The General Will serves as a potent reminder that political legitimacy should always be based on the common good of the community, not the interests of a select group.

 

Conclusion

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s idea of the general will is one of the most impactful and thought-provoking concepts in political philosophy. It pushes societies to balance individual freedom with collective responsibility and personal interest with the common good. In Rousseau’s ideal republic, true liberty is found not in isolation but in unity. This occurs when citizens willingly choose to pursue together what benefits everyone.

His concept of the General Will is essential to modern political thought. In The Social Contract, Rousseau envisioned a society where absolute authority comes from the agreement of free and equal citizens, not from power or privilege. The General Will stands for the moral and common good that unites individuals into a single political community. Rousseau's ideas challenged the traditional foundations of government and inspired democratic movements that sought to empower the people. He believed that true freedom is found in obeying laws that one imposes on oneself, a concept that transformed the understanding of citizenship and responsibility within the state.

Despite facing criticism and various interpretations, Rousseau's ideas continue to matter today. In an era still grappling with inequality, social division, and political corruption, his plea for participation, moral unity, and commitment to the common good is crucial. His philosophy reminds us that Democracy is more than just a form of government; it is a shared commitment to justice and the well-being of all.

Ultimately, Rousseau’s vision of the General Will encourages societies to balance individual freedom with collective responsibility. This remains a timeless goal for peaceful human coexistence.

REFERENCES:

Bertram, C. (2012). Rousseau's Legacy in Two Conceptions of the General Will: Democratic and Transcendent

Canon. S. (2022). Three General Wills in Rousseau, The Review of Politics

Carnston, M. & Duignan, B. (2025). Literature, Novels & Short Stories. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jean-Jacques-Rousseau

Fieser, J, and Dowden, B. (1995). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/rousseau

Malpas, J. (2012). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 

Munro, A. (2013). Politics, Law, and Government

Rousseau, J. (2010). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

Rousseau, J. (2020). The Social Contract Book 2, Chapter 7: The Lawgiver Summary.  https://boatcontinuing.com/q9h97sj5?key=23b279e99ed6a529a30f577cdce2aeb9

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

A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD: EXPLORING THE ETHICAL PREDICAMENT OF SENIOR-BASED AGAINST PERFORMANCE-BASED PROMOTIONS IN THE WORKPLACE

 By Zet Bruceton L. Pasion

Master’s in Business Administration

Abstract

            This paper examines the ethical tensions between the two promotion systems, showing the organization's equity, justice, and moral theory. In a theoretical discussion, this study highlights that neither approach is ethically reliable. Instead, it advocates for a transparent, balanced, and context-sensitive promotion system that considers both seniority-based and performance-based factors while upholding inclusivity and fairness in the workplace.

Keywords

            Promotions, Double-edged sword, Senior-based promotion, Performance-based promotion, Ethical Predicament, Workplace, Promotion System, Employees

Introduction

            In this world, organizations play a crucial role in helping people find employment and acquire new skills. Within these organizations, a process known as promotion exists, where select employees receive additional support and opportunities to advance in rank. Promotion means selecting the most qualified person, and it needs everyone involved to agree. The primary factors that determine whether someone gets promoted are their performance in their current job and their potential for success in a more senior position. Promotion is crucial because it affects employee motivation, the company's operational efficiency, and its prospects. The two most common ways to promote people are by seniority and by performance. These methods reveal different values that organizations prioritize, such as experience, loyalty, results, and productivity. Using either technique can lead to unfair situations and disagreements, which can cause problems for both the employees and the company.

            The seniority-based promotion occurs when an organization promotes an employee based on their seniority and the length of time they've been working in the organization. This promotion system provides predictability, helps retain employees, and prevents favoritism. In addition, the advantage of using this method is that it allows employees to feel their loyalty to the organization has been recognized and rewarded. However, this system can demotivate high-performing younger employees and result in promotions based on time served rather than actual impact or competence.

            Performance-based promotions occur when a company awards raises or promotions to employees who have demonstrated exceptional performance, such as producing a high volume, possessing strong skills, working efficiently, and excelling individually. This system can have some problems, such as creating unhealthy competition, leading to biased evaluations, and making employees who contribute in less measurable but still essential ways feel left out.

            These two different methods of promoting people create a significant ethical dilemma: how can companies determine which approach is more effective in terms of efficiency, fairness, and justice? Should people be promoted just because they have worked at the company for a long time? Or should people be encouraged because they work harder and help the company do better? Both systems have their issues. The seniority system might keep someone in a higher position even if they aren't performing well, while the performance system could favor someone who is liked by managers, even if they aren't the best at their job.

Pros and Cons of Seniority-Based Promotions

            Promotions based on seniority occur when a company awards employees salary increases or new positions in recognition of their length of service. Using this promotion system has its pros and cons. Promotions depend on the duration of employment with the company; the procedure is straightforward. Workers can anticipate their career trajectory, thereby enhancing their sense of security and self-worth. Choices are determined by the duration of service in the company, rather than by personal relationships or power. This also fosters loyalty, as it demonstrates the company's values of long-term dedication, causing employees to feel more secure about their future. An additional advantage is that it decreases bias and partiality. It relies on specific criteria such as years of service, which enhances the fairness of the process.

            Despite this, there are also drawbacks to using this kind of promotion system, one of which is compromising equal opportunity. This will be based solely on seniority, that do not account for individual performance, skills, or potential, resulting in highly ambitious and competent employees becoming frustrated if they are overlooked. Another con is that it can discourage younger or newer employees, who may feel that their chances of advancement are limited regardless of their skills. This will lead to higher turnover among talented individuals who seek faster career growth and are unwilling to wait for opportunities tied to time rather than merit.

Pros and Cons of Performance-Based Promotions

            Performance-based promotions occur when a company rewards an employee for excelling in their role and demonstrating exceptional abilities. One benefit of this system is that it motivates employees to work harder. When people understand that doing a good job can lead to benefits such as a better job title or increased responsibility, they tend to focus on improving their skills and working more efficiently. This type of system fosters a positive work environment where hard work and talent are recognized, ultimately making the entire team more productive. Additionally, using performance-based promotions can help companies attract and retain top talent, ensuring that high-potential employees have the opportunity to take on more significant roles and make a greater impact.

However, there are also downsides to this system. One significant issue is that it may overlook essential qualities that are more difficult to measure, such as leadership potential, intelligence, and teamwork skills. An employee who performs well may not possess the skills needed to lead a team or manage a department. Additionally, if someone tries too hard to outperform others, it can create unhealthy competition, undermine teamwork, and even lead to unfair or unethical behavior in the pursuit of success. Another risk is that performance evaluations might be biased or inconsistent. If the process isn't fair, it can make employees feel discouraged or frustrated instead of inspired.

Ethical Conflicts in Practice

            In organizations, people often disagree about whether someone should be promoted based on the length of their tenure or their job performance. Both methods of determining promotions may seem fair, but they can raise ethical concerns that impact individuals, teams, and the organization's overall culture. These disagreements raise questions about fairness, morality, and the value of experience, all of which are essential for maintaining a healthy work environment. A significant issue is that some groups may feel mistreated depending on which system is used. In a seniority-based system, high-performing staff, especially younger or newly hired employees, might be overlooked because their work hasn't been recognized yet, even if they are making valuable contributions. This raises important ethical questions about whether experience should be valued more highly than actual performance. On the other hand, a performance-based system may overlook experienced employees who possess extensive knowledge and skills. This highlights an ethical challenge in striking a balance between recognizing past achievements and driving future success.

Another ethical issue that comes up is the conflict between different generations. People of various ages may have other ideas about what fair advancement looks like. Younger workers often join the company with a focus on results and expect quick promotions if they perform well. On the other hand, older employees might see promotions as a reward for their long time with the company and their loyalty. These differing views can create feelings of resentment. Younger employees might resist new ideas, while older employees might feel that the younger generation doesn't value their experience. The company needs to handle these differences carefully, ensuring that it shows respect, includes everyone, and treats all generations fairly.

Another important ethical issue is the lack of transparency in promotions. Employees often don't know exactly what factors determine who gets promoted—whether it's based on seniority or performance. In an ethical workplace, people rely on procedural justice, which means they believe the process is fair and transparent. However, when the promotion system is unclear, employees may perceive unfair practices such as favoritism, manipulation, or politics within the company.

Legal and Policy Considerations

            In the Philippines, promotion decisions are highly regulated by organizations due to jurisdictional considerations, employment law, and organizational policies that govern and must be handled to ensure fairness, non-discrimination, and transparency. According to Article 135 of the Labor Code, employers are prohibited from discriminating based on gender. Additionally, under Republic Act No. 10911, the Anti-Age Discrimination in Employment Act, it is expressly forbidden to deny promotions based on age, thereby ensuring equal opportunities regardless of age. This principle showcases that promotions must be free from discrimination and bias.

Conclusion

            In organizations, promotion policies are more than just routine decisions—they show the company's values and ethical standards. The debate between seniority-based and performance-based promotions isn't about picking one over the other, but about understanding the risks and limits of each system. To address this ethical issue effectively, companies should adopt a balanced and well-considered approach. A key suggestion that can significantly benefit an organization and reduce ethical issues at work is to implement a hybrid promotion system. This combines both seniority-based and performance-based methods, recognizing the loyalty of long-time employees and the achievements of high performers. This approach can help build a fairer and more inclusive culture, while also avoiding the ethical risks that come from relying on just one method

References

Bennett, M. (2021, February 11). Seniority vs Performance: What’s More Important to Get Promoted? https://www.niagarainstitute.com/blog/seniority-vs-performance.com

Sennewald, C. A. (2011, April 8). Effective Security Management. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/promotion-process.com

Indeed Editorial Team (2025 June) Seniority vs. Performance in Promotions: Definitions, Pros and Cons, and Tips. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/seniority-vs-performance#:~:text=A%20seniority%2Dbased%20promotion%20is%20where%20management%20promotes%20an%20employee,other%20qualifications%20for%20the%20promotion.

Reddy, C. (2016). Seniority System: Definition, Advantages, and Disadvantages. https://content.wisestep.com/advantages-disadvantages-seniority-system/

AIM Team (2017 June 16) Seniority vs. Performance-Based Promotion. https://stemplatform.aiminstitute.org/news/seniority-vs-performance-based-promotion/

Honestivalues Editorial Team (2024 August 28) Ethical Challenges in Performance Evaluations and Promotions. https://blogs.honestivalues.com/blog-ethical-challenges-in-performance-evaluations-and-promotions-37089

Bunag, L. (2025, April 10). Employment Laws in the Philippines: A Guide for Employers. https://www.veremark.com/blog/employment-laws-in-the-philippines-a-guide-for-employers#:~:text=Encourages%20the%20hiring%20of%20individuals,opportunities%2C%20without%20regard%20to%20age.

Respicio & Co. (2025 March 5) Employee Promotion and Labor Laws. https://www.respicio.ph/commentaries/employee-promotion-and-labor-laws

Shevchenko, N. (2025, February 2). Promotion Policy. https://www.monitask.com/en/forms/promotion-policy

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