GENERATIONS OR BIASES? HOW THE FALLACY OF LABELS SHAPES HUMAN BEHAVIOR

When we talk about “generations,” it is almost inevitable to resort to terms like “Baby Boomers,” “Generation X,” “Millennials,” and “Generation Z,” as if these categories could explain an individual’s behavior, beliefs, and values. The idea that each group has immutable and fixed characteristics based on the time of their birth takes root in the social narrative, creating a division that presents itself as inevitable. But is this separation, so widely accepted, a sufficient explanation for contemporary challenges and dynamics, especially in the corporate world? Or is the reality we live in much more complex than the simple attribution of labels? The truth is that perhaps the problem does not lie in each person’s generation, but in how society and technology shape our behaviors in a transversal and impersonal way.
In the corporate environment, the segmentation of generations is often used to explain gaps in productivity, commitment, and performance. Phrases like “Millennials lack commitment” or “Baby Boomers are outdated” are repeated like a mantra, disregarding the multitude of factors that truly influence human behavior at work. The reality, however, is more intricate. The notion that simply classifying an individual according to their “generation” can shed light on their motivations and competencies ignores historical, social, and, primarily, the effects of emerging technologies.
For example, we are undoubtedly living in an era of information and digital overload, where the excess of stimuli can impair our ability to maintain focus and manage productivity. How can we maintain attention when every new notification becomes a reminder of the uncertainty that surrounds us? How can we cultivate concentration and team engagement when they are constantly interrupted by global crises and emotional crises projected on the screens of our devices? These issues cannot be attributed to a specific generation; they are direct consequences of a social and digital context in which all of us are immersed. The issue, then, is broader and deeper than the simple “failure” of a particular age group.
This reminds me of Pierre Bourdieu, who, in his analysis of social structures, introduces the concept of habitus, a set of ingrained dispositions that shape our actions and perceptions. According to Bourdieu, these dispositions are formed by the social and historical conditions around us and, therefore, cannot be reduced to rigid and fixed categories like “generations.” Simplifying human complexity by attributing a fixed set of values and behaviors to a generation does not do justice to the multiple layers of factors that truly shape people’s behavior. Therefore, the focus should obviously not be on the generation, but on the social and technological conditions that create a context that affects everyone in a similar, and sometimes harmful, way.
Nowadays, I use a concept called digital noise, based on what behavioral and technology scholars alert us to, which has become one of the greatest influences on how we perceive and react to the world. The constant avalanche of information, often contradictory, false, and emotionally manipulative, prevents us from thinking critically, reflecting deeply, and making informed decisions. The attention crisis, mental health issues, and focus problems that arise in both personal life and the corporate world are not, therefore, a failure of generations, but a manifestation of a social and technological system that is poorly adapted to deal with human complexity and cognitive limits.
It is not by chance that Michel Foucault, for his part, offered another powerful perspective on this phenomenon. According to him, the social categories we use — such as generations — are not simple reflections of reality, but rather discursive constructions, i.e., categories created and maintained by practices of power. The idea that we belong to distinct generations with specific and irreversible characteristics serves to control and divide, creating a narrative that simplifies reality to facilitate control over individuals. Thus, the construction of labels like “lazy Millennials” or “obsolete Baby Boomers” not only ignores deeper social dynamics but also turns the identity of a group into a tool of domination.
The real problem, therefore, is not in the generations themselves, but in how we use these constructions to reduce the complexity of human behavior. Generations are not isolated entities, immune to social and digital transformations. They are, in fact, constructs that lack a realistic and more holistic understanding. Instead of labeling, we should seek to understand the impact of historical, social, and technological conditions that influence all of us, regardless of the era in which we were born. The focus should be on what connects us, not on what separates us.
Today, I invite you to reflect: To what extent are we truly defined by the generation to which we belong? Or are we all immersed in yet another simplistic social construct that shapes our identities in a reductive way? The narrative of generations, as a single and definitive explanation, may be creating more division than understanding. By questioning these labels, we can begin to see the interconnections that unite us and truly understand human behavior in a broader, more inclusive, and transformative way.

The Nature of the Farce Between Generations

The dividing line between generations, often treated as an uncontested reality, is, in fact, one of the greatest farces of contemporary society and one of the most absurd ways of seeking scapegoats. Categorizing people based on their birth date, as if this were enough to determine their ideas, values, and behaviors, is a simplification that ignores the complex interactions between social, cultural, and individual factors. The idea that a generation can be defined by a fixed set of characteristics, like an “essence,” leads us to question: to what extent are these divisions really useful or just convenient ways to categorize and control?
Each person, just like the historical moment they live in, is unique, shaped by a complex set of experiences, values, and challenges that transcend their time of birth. When we try to segment individuals by generations, we risk reducing their identities to superficial stereotypes, disregarding the deeper aspects that truly define them. This reductionism, although common in popular and business discourses, ignores the richness of the human experience and the individual capacity for adaptation, overcoming, and transformation.
In 1979, sociologist Eliot Freidson argued that generations are not fixed categories but social constructions that reflect political and economic interests. He observed that the way different age groups are portrayed in social narratives is not a simple consequence of the time they were born but a reflection of the power dynamics that govern these representations. Freidson believed that “generation” is, in fact, a concept that adapts according to the needs of society and the structures that control it, in a process of constant “reinterpretation.”
According to the philosopher Michel Foucault, social identities are not fixed but are shaped by discourses and power practices that seek to categorize and discipline individuals. Foucault proposed that, just like the categories of “race,” “gender,” or “social class,” generations are, in a way, social “inventions” that help us control the way we view human behavior. By labeling individuals from a certain age group, a stereotype is created that overlooks the particularities of each person, while reinforcing a narrative that divides and fragments. For Foucault, these classifications serve more to discipline and control society than to truly understand it.
The formation of individual identity, therefore, is a process far more complex and multifaceted than any generational label can suggest. Psychologist Erik Erikson, in his study of psychosocial development, proposed that a person’s identity is not determined in a linear or rigid manner, but is instead shaped by dynamic interactions throughout life. Erikson believed that, while historical context influences behavior, identity is built through interpersonal relationships and individual choices, rather than by birth dates.
Contemporary studies, such as those conducted by the Generational Research Institute, reveal that the differences between generations are often greatly exaggerated, with similar behaviors frequently observed across age groups, especially when factors such as education, social class, and geographic context are taken into account. Recent data shows that, although there are differences in consumer preferences or attitudes toward technology, generations share more similarities than we are often led to believe. In fact, most modern attitudes and behaviors are more closely related to the impact of technology and globalization than to being born in a specific decade.
Furthermore, the growing phenomenon of individualization in contemporary society, as addressed by Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim, suggests that people are increasingly making decisions based on their own experiences and choices, rather than being shaped solely by their social or generational context. Newer generations, often labeled as “disconnected” or “indifferent,” are actually more aware and questioning of the social system as a whole, seeking alternatives that challenge established norms. What might appear to be an attitude of rebellion or resistance is, in fact, a form of adaptation to an increasingly fluid and unpredictable world.
When we talk about the so-called “generations,” we are, therefore, dealing with a series of stereotypes and social labels that are assigned to groups of individuals based on their year of birth, as if the mere fact of being born in a specific period were enough to define our behavior. However, as the evidence shows, these conceptions fail to take into account the enormous complexity of individual identity formation. This, in turn, is shaped not only by the historical context in which we are born but also by a multitude of factors: our education, the cultures we are embedded in, the personal experiences we live through, and, above all, our unique ability to adapt and evolve in the face of life’s challenges.
The notion that each generation is a homogeneous and distinct block is, therefore, a fallacy. It fails to consider the fluid dynamics of human identity, which transforms and adapts over time. Rather than viewing generations as static categories, we need to see people as dynamic individuals, whose behaviors and choices result from a complex web of social, historical, and cultural influences that transcend the barriers of any chronological classification.
The reflection on generations as fixed categories is an invitation to rethink the social dynamics that have been shaped over time by simplistic narratives. The idea that a generation has an “immutable essence” that defines the values and behaviors of its members not only ignores the complexity of individual experiences but also perpetuates a fallacy that diverts our attention from the real factors that influence human behavior. The reality is that we are facing a series of external influences that go beyond the simple generational question.
The generational divide is often used as a tool of control, a way to categorize and simplify human relationships, assigning responsibilities and blaming one group for the supposed decay of values, without reflecting on the deeper causes of this transformation.
In the business context, this fallacy becomes even more evident when stereotypes are attributed as if it were possible to reduce the nuances of human complexity to these labels. Wouldn’t it be more sensible to think that what shapes behavior, both in the workplace and in everyday life, is the impact of the social and digital conditions we are immersed in, and not the birth dates that define us?

The Belief That Generations Have Fixed Characteristics as Professionals

In the organizational context, this phenomenon translates into a common misconception: the belief that generations have fixed characteristics that make them more or less compatible with certain types of work or leadership models. Many leaders and managers always have something to say about “Baby Boomers,” “Generation X,” “Millennials,” and “Generation Z,” for example. It is common to see “Generation Z” as digitally native but lacking focus or commitment, “Baby Boomers” as resistant to change and technologically outdated, “Generation X” as pragmatic, focused, and skeptical, while “Millennials” are seen as idealistic and in search of purpose, but often considered fickle or uncommitted. These conceptions reduce individuals to labels based on their age group, becoming a management tool that often ignores each person’s adaptive, innovative, and collaborative potential, regardless of their birth date.
Organizations, when trapped in this simplistic view, end up creating simplistic meritocratic cultures that favor conformity and rigidity, to the detriment of creativity, flexibility, and collaboration. This directly affects relationships and engagement in the corporate environment. This approach not only limits individual growth opportunities but also compromises the collective performance of the organization and negatively impacts the organizational climate. By reducing people to generational stereotypes, the unique potential of each employee is overlooked, ignoring the diversity of skills and experiences that each brings with them. If it is true that a person’s identity is influenced by their life experiences and historical context, it is also true that it is constantly evolving, adapting to new challenges and learning over time. In the corporate environment, this dynamic is crucial: organizations must be able to recognize and value the fluidity and evolution of professional identities, rather than trapping them in generational stereotypes.
Furthermore, it is important to highlight that generational boundaries are not as rigid as popular narratives would suggest. The reality is that, in a highly connected and globalized world, the characteristics attributed to a generation are often more related to economic, social, and technological contexts than to the chronological age of its members. For example, the impact of the digital revolution is not restricted to a single age group. Many “Baby Boomers” have quickly adapted to new technologies, while some “Millennials”, although born in a digital world, face difficulties with issues of focus and productivity, often due to information overload and hyperconnectivity. Simplistic labels like these do not serve to promote a culture of inclusion, but rather reinforce artificial divisions that can harm organizational harmony.
True change in the organizational world begins with breaking this cycle of rigid categorization. Instead of defining people by “generations,” we should look at them as unique human beings, whose individual journeys are shaped by a multifaceted set of influences, where experiences, education, skills, and values acquired over a lifetime are as significant as the period in which they were born. By treating people as individuals, not as generational stereotypes, organizations create an environment more conducive to the flourishing of each employee’s abilities, encouraging the development of key competencies such as adaptability, creativity, collaboration, and emotional intelligence.
By overcoming the fallacy of generations, organizations can create more inclusive, dynamic, and collaborative spaces, where human potential is recognized and cultivated in a richer and deeper way. This not only benefits the development of each employee but also strengthens the organizational culture, promoting a true transformation that goes beyond process innovation, extending to the continuous renewal of the people who make it up. Genuine organizational transformation is built, above all, on the ability to see individuals beyond their temporal labels, recognizing that true innovation comes from the diversity of perspectives, experiences, and life trajectories.

Human Behavior Beyond Generations: Reflections on Education, Knowledge, and Development

The search for an understanding of human behavior, especially when reduced to the concept of generations, has been a constant in recent decades. However, the truth is that the reductive view that attempts to categorize individuals according to their generation – “X”, “Y”, “Z” – not only fails to explain the complex dynamics that shape our actions but also obscures the real forces that shape our behavior. Behavioral psychology and neuroscience, on the other hand, reveal that the processes governing human behavior are universal, timeless, and deeply rooted in our biology and psychology.
Our cognitive and emotional processes, which define our perception of the world and ourselves, cannot be adequately explained by a mere timeline of historical events. What shapes our identity, our beliefs, and consequently, our actions, is an intricate combination of personal experiences, biological needs, psychological impulses, and, no less important, the social and cultural context we experience. Thus, the view that an individual’s behavior can be attributed exclusively to their “generation” disregards the complexity of the human experience, which transcends any temporal classification.
In a world where immediate demands and constant pressures are intensifying, we are often incapable of coping with the imposed reality. The speed of information, the immediacy of responses, and the sensory hyperexcitement resulting from the digital environment have hijacked our cognitive capacity. This phenomenon, a reflection of the postmodern world, is often minimized or even ignored, when it should be at the center of discussions about mental health and well-being. Instead of reflecting on these structural issues, there is often a tendency to demonize and label groups and behaviors, a retreat into superficiality.
And when we talk about education — another essential pillar for the formation of identity — the situation worsens even further. The contemporary Western educational model, increasingly standardized and regulated, not only fails to recognize the individuality of students but also promotes an education that reinforces generational stereotypes. In many cases, efforts are made to adjust students to standard performance criteria, rather than cultivating the ability for critical and autonomous reflection. In contrast, traditional Eastern education, with its emphasis on self-knowledge, respect for ancestral wisdom, and the pursuit of harmony with the cosmos, still upholds values that recognize learning as a dynamic and continuous process, going beyond the mere acquisition of technical knowledge.
This phenomenon is even more evident when we look at recent decades, where what we are really witnessing is not a simple transition between generations, but a deeper transformation in the nature of knowledge and education. Here, education, once a path of deep and authentic learning, has increasingly been standardized to a simplistic perception, shaped by a system that values memorization and conformity at the expense of critical thinking, creativity, and intellectual autonomy. This trend not only limits the reflective capacity of individuals but also weakens the tools needed for us to face contemporary challenges in a creative and adaptive way.
The quality of education, especially in the West, has become a reflection of an educational system that values the mass production of information but not the profound transformation of the individual. The contrast with the East, where many educational traditions still seek the holistic development of the human being, further highlights this gap. In the East, learning goes beyond the transmission of content; it is also a process of self-discovery and integration, where sociability and civility are part of the school curriculum from the outset. It is an invitation for the individual to develop their own understanding of the world, based on their unique experience and their ability to adapt in the face of a profound knowledge that begins with the history and culture of their people.
In the West, the lack of a holistic approach is also reflected in organizations, which often prioritize production and compliance over creativity, flexibility, and collaboration. This pattern, which still predominates in many corporate environments, limits human potential and hinders the emergence of innovative leadership and truly integrated teams. It is no coincidence that knowledge often becomes a tool for control, rather than a strategy for liberation. Instead of fostering the ability to question, to challenge established norms, there has been an emphasis on producing quick answers and complying with pre-established systems. In this process, the normalization of people and behaviors not only ignores human diversity but also creates an ever-growing distance between the individual and their own potential.
However, as philosopher Hannah Arendt teaches us, true human potential lies in the ability to act in a unique and authentic way, within a space of freedom and reflection. Arendt argues that the human being is, above all, a plural being, whose true nature is revealed in the capacity to act and think independently, away from the normative pressures that try to shape them. Human behavior, therefore, should not be seen as a response to a specific generation, but as a manifestation of the choices we make throughout our journey, supported by our experiences and the freedom of reflection we can cultivate.
In an increasingly automated and predictable world, where the search for quick solutions and easy formulas seems to be the norm, it is more urgent than ever to rethink the role of education and knowledge in our lives. We must seek ways to recover the depth and complexity of learning, rather than being seduced by the superficiality of speed and standardization. True knowledge is not what is imposed on us, but what is constructed through reflection, lived experience, and critical awareness.
By abandoning outdated notions about generations and embracing a deeper and more reflective approach to human behavior, we will be able to not only understand our motivations but also to act with more autonomy, creativity, and purpose in an increasingly challenging and unpredictable world.

Philosophy and Human Behavior: Going Beyond the Common

It is worth recalling philosophers such as Sartre and Nietzsche who questioned the nature of freedom and human identity, arguing that we are, above all, beings in constant transformation. For them, identity is not something fixed and determined by external forces, but something that must be conquered and redefined at every moment. The idea of a “generation” defining an individual’s behavior contradicts this philosophical perspective, which suggests that we are active subjects in the construction of our own identity, shaped by our reflection, choice, and action.
If we reflect from the perspective of Social Psychology, we see that the construction of generations is, in fact, a strategy of social control. By creating divisions between age groups, society creates a mechanism that simplifies social relations and puts individuals into boxes, facilitating a superficial understanding of complex behaviors. But this simplification does not take into account the multifaceted reality of the human experience, in which we are simultaneously shaped by social, cultural, economic forces, and, more deeply, by our neurobiology.
When we think about human identity through the lens of Sartre and Nietzsche, we are challenged to abandon the idea that we are simply products of our time, our generation, or our circumstances. For Sartre, human freedom is radical and always at our consciousness’ disposal, which constantly redefines itself, with the subject as the creator of its own essence. Nietzsche, in turn, proposes that identity is a constant overcoming of oneself, a process that is not reduced to external categories or historical determinations, but to a continuous search for power and self-overcoming. These philosophical perspectives reveal a deeper truth about the human condition: we are not defined by the time we are born, but by our ability to transform, question, and choose.
Bringing this reflection into the field of social psychology, the view of the generation as a fixed and determinant marker of behavior takes on clearer contours as a social control mechanism. According to Foucault, divisions based on ages, which generate generational labeling, do nothing more than stigmatize and simplify a reality that, by its complexity, challenges any attempt at categorization. Instead of embracing the diversity of human experiences, these constructions reduce identity to a single narrative, often disconnected from the individuality and unique realities of each being.
In a world marked by standardization and the relentless search for immediate results, true education should be one that fosters the ability to question, reflect, and reinvent oneself. For, as Nietzsche teaches us, true knowledge is not what is passively received, but what is actively constructed, challenging norms, going beyond the superficiality of labels, and always seeking deep self-knowledge. What is often missing today is an education that recognizes the human being as an active subject in the construction of their own reality, and not just as a reflection of their generation or societal expectations.

Challenging the Status Quo: What’s Behind the Farce of Generations?

As we delve into the depths of human behavior, we are prompted to question not only the labels we assign to generations but also the very functioning of a society that insists on fitting us into predefined and limiting boxes. What truly defines us as human beings? Are our unique experiences and authentic choices the true forces that shape who we are? Or, on the contrary, are we mere constructs of a society that thrives on division and segmentation, creating superficial patterns of categorization that distance us from our true selves?
We live in a world where generations are constantly labeled and compared, as if the mere fact of being born in a particular period is enough to explain behaviors, attitudes, and values. “Generation X,” “Generation Y,” “Generation Z”—labels that attempt to encapsulate human complexity into defined boxes, ignoring the vibrant fabric of diversity and individual experience. But at what cost?
These labels not only reduce human identity to simplistic stereotypes, but they also create a fundamental distortion in our perception of ourselves and others. How can we demand empathy, collaboration, and genuine growth in an environment where the “different” is often seen with distrust and exclusion? How can we expect a more integrated society if we continually feed the idea that age, experience, or historical context deterministically shape who we are or who we should be?
The answer to these questions, although complex, lies in a single fundamental principle: freedom. The freedom to define ourselves through the totality of our experiences, not by a number or an age that separates us from one another. True human nature lies in plurality, in the capacity for adaptation, and in constant transformation. We are beings in motion, not static.
By challenging this reductive view, we are led to rethink the true role of organizations, leadership, and corporate culture. Instead of fostering division between generations, we should seek to build bridges that integrate differences, creating spaces for dialogue and mutual learning. What truly unites us as human beings are not ages, but our emotions, our challenges, our desires, and our wish to evolve together.

The Reality that Escapes Us: The Challenge of Embracing Vulnerability and Change

What many still fail to realize is that by labeling people based on their age, we are, in fact, creating a confirmation bias. When we speak of a generation as “lost,” “unmotivated,” or “lacking focus,” we are, unsustainably, reflecting on the flaws of the very system that we ourselves have helped build. What we see today in the new generations is not their problem, but rather a reflection of a world that has long since lost its direction. They are the mirror of our digital age, where connections are fast but often shallow, where “having” has overshadowed “being,” and where a person’s value is, too often, measured by the amount of goods they own or the status they display.
Instead of blaming the new generations, we need to reflect on our own contribution to the current state of the world. We are dealing with people who were born into and shaped by a reality that we ourselves created — a reality that prioritizes spectacle, greed, instant consumption, superficial validation, and the label of “performance.” No one chose to be born into this world; they simply inherited this reality.
The world we live in is in a constant process of transformation. And all of us, without exception, are part of this change. What many still do not understand is that the crisis we are facing is not a crisis of a specific generation or social group, but rather of the very model we have been building over time. The failures and misalignments we observe are not the exclusive responsibility of one segment of society, but rather the result of a system that has failed as a whole.
The issue is not about pointing fingers or determining “who should learn from whom,” but about recognizing that we are living in a critical moment of reconfiguration. We live in a paradox: a world newly built on ready-made answers, truths, and certainties, migrating to a world that recognizes that what we truly have are infinite questions and uncertainties. What we see now are expressions of a collective process — an attempt to restore the lost balance, a balance that has long been distorted by a society that stopped prioritizing genuine human relationships and true socialization.
When we look at societal behavior, we realize how it reflects the failure of a structure that prioritized “having” over “being,” consumption over coexistence, and status at any cost. The truth is, we should not expect a generation to have the answers to this impasse. What we need is a collective effort, an openness to recognizing the failures of the system that we all helped create.
The great mistake we make is trying to place the responsibility for transformation on a single group or a specific stage of life. True transformation will only come through genuine collaboration and collective responsibility. We need to be vulnerable enough to look inward and recognize that all of us, in some way, have contributed to the chaos we see around us. The problem is not with the future of the youth, but with the inability of social, family, and organizational structures to adapt to the new context of a world that is constantly changing.

The Reality of Change in the Corporate World

When reflecting on the generational crisis, we cannot overlook its impact on the corporate world, which is also part of the problem. Companies, often in their search for immediate results and efficiency, perpetuate practices that not only fail to align with the needs of a constantly evolving society but also fail to integrate the essential human values that form the foundation of true collaboration and innovation.
In the corporate environment, generations are often viewed as isolated categories, with companies dividing teams by age groups, trying to adapt the “old” model of leadership and performance to a new context that demands more than pure productivity. Many leaders continue to adopt approaches that prioritize “having” over “being,” with an excessive focus on performance metrics and status, to the detriment of building a diverse organizational culture that fosters collaboration, appreciation, belonging, authenticity, and mental health.
The biggest mistake organizations make is not seeing that younger generations are not a “problem” to be solved but rather an opportunity to reimagine the future of the corporate world. They are not only challenging traditional ways of working; they are offering us a unique chance to revisit organizational structures, rethink leadership paradigms, and embrace vulnerability as a central value for human and organizational development.
The corporate world, in many ways, is still stuck in a hierarchical leadership model based on authority and pressure for results. This outdated model does not recognize the importance of an inclusive work environment that allows everyone—regardless of age or position—to express themselves and collaborate genuinely. Organizations that fail to adapt to this new reality, that do not know how to integrate different generations into a common purpose, risk becoming obsolete.
Leaders, in particular, have the responsibility to go beyond labels and simplistic approaches. They must be the first to adopt an open, flexible, and collaborative mindset that allows not only for the coexistence of generations but for the appreciation of their unique contributions. We can no longer continue to separate generations by their “differences” and treat them as incompatible segments but rather as a force that, when united, can generate deep innovations and transformative changes.
Instead of treating younger generations as misfits or unmotivated, companies need to invest in their development, providing space for their ideas to flourish. We need a new type of leadership—one that is not based solely on experience but also on the ability to listen, to learn from new perspectives, and to foster an inclusive organizational culture where human value is the foundation of all operations.
True transformation in the corporate world will only be achieved when organizations stop seeing younger generations as a “problem” to be fixed and begin to see them as essential agents of innovation and balance. Companies need to embrace a new vision of leadership that is not based only on the relentless pursuit of results but on the continuous development of the human being in all its dimensions.
The responsibility to create a more humanized corporate future is in our hands—the hands of the leaders who have the courage to challenge paradigms, embrace change, and cultivate environments where everyone, regardless of their generation, can unite for a common purpose. True leadership is that which recognizes the value of vulnerability, empathy, and intergenerational collaboration as the pillars for a stronger, more resilient, and above all, more humane organization.

In conclusion,
This is where the great transformation lies: by disregarding this generation, we are ignoring a unique opportunity for renewal. They carry with them the potential to rebalance our society, to reshape our priorities, and to reverse what we have built based on superficiality and egocentrism. They may be the key to returning to humanity what we have lost: authenticity, empathy, and collaboration. But for this to happen, we need to invest in them with the same passion we dedicate to our own values.
As the German philosopher Martin Heidegger aptly stated, “The human being is the being for change.” And this change is not something that occurs in an individualized way, but collectively. By labeling the new generations, we are preventing them from playing their essential role in this collective process of transformation. They are showing us the limits of the system we live in—and instead of rejecting them, we should embrace this awakening they bring with them.
As leaders, parents, and educators, let us not deceive ourselves: the responsibility to invest in the potential of today’s youth lies in our hands. We must provide them not only with opportunities but also spaces for authentic development so that their creativity and cognitive abilities can flourish healthily. By giving them the tools to find their balance, we will ourselves discover new ways to rethink our existence, our cultures, and ultimately, our leadership.
We can no longer follow the idea that the solution is to adapt new generations to old ways of thinking. What we need is to learn to walk together—not in a movement of imposition, but of collaboration. We need to embrace the idea that it is not the generations that have the answers, but rather the sum of all generations intertwining in a common purpose.
As the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, “Nothing is permanent, except change.” We need to stop thinking in simplistic solutions, pointing fingers, and especially dividing people by temporal labels or generational stigmas. What really matters is the ability of all—regardless of any label—to unite in order to learn, grow, and transform in response to the demands of the present.
True transformation begins when we stop dividing and start collaborating—when we become vulnerable enough to recognize that, together, we can rebuild a more humane, more balanced, and above all, more conscious reality of who we are and what we are creating. This journey starts now. With all of us.
If you wish to transcend the limitations imposed by labels and social categories, I invite you to reflect on the possibilities for transformation that arise when we are able to look beyond conventions and embrace the complexity of the human experience. Human behavior is not a passive reflection of its time, but a dynamic process, open to change and evolution.

If you identified with this perspective, know that I am here to assist you in your journey of self-discovery and personal development. True transformation begins when we leave behind labels and begin to understand the complexity that constitutes us, with its infinite possibilities and challenges.
And you, what do you think about the way generations are treated in society? How does this view impact your behavior and choices?
Comment, share your thoughts, give a thumbs-up, and maybe, together, we can open doors to a new understanding of human behavior, free from generational limitations.

Did you enjoy this article? 🌟
Thank you for following another exclusive post by Marcello de Souza on human behavior!
Hello, I’m Marcello de Souza! My journey began in 1997 as a leader and manager at a large IT and Telecom company. Since then, I have led significant network structuring and optimization projects in Brazil. Driven by a curiosity and passion for behavioral and social psychology, I delved into the fascinating world of the human mind in 2008.
Today, I am a professional dedicated to uncovering the secrets of human behavior and driving positive change in individuals and organizations. With a Ph.D. in Social Psychology and over 27 years of experience in Cognitive Behavioral and Organizational Human Development, my career spans various areas:
• As a Senior Master Coach & Trainer, I help my clients achieve personal and professional goals, generating extraordinary results.
• As a Chief Happiness Officer (CHO), I cultivate an organizational culture of happiness and well-being, enhancing productivity and team engagement.
• As an Expert in Language & Behavioral Development, I refine communication and self-awareness skills, empowering individuals to face challenges with resilience.
• As a Cognitive Behavioral Therapist, I use advanced techniques to overcome obstacles and promote a balanced mind.
• As a Speaker, Professor, Writer, and Researcher, I share valuable insights at events, trainings, and publications, inspiring positive change.
• As a Consultant & Mentor, my experience in leadership and project management allows me to identify growth opportunities and propose personalized strategies.
My strong academic background includes four postgraduate degrees and a Ph.D. in Social Psychology, as well as international certifications in Management, Leadership, and Cognitive Behavioral Development. I am a co-author of the book “The Secret of Coaching” and the author of “The Map Is Not the Territory, the Territory Is You” and “The Diet Society” (the first of a trilogy on contemporary human behavior – 09/2023).
Allow me to be your partner on this journey of self-discovery and success. Together, we will uncover a universe of behavioral possibilities and achieve extraordinary results. I invite you to be part of my network! As a lover of behavioral psychology, social psychology, and neuroscience, I have created a YouTube channel to share my passion for cognitive behavioral development.
All data and content in this article or video are exclusive, based on philosophical concepts and proven scientific studies, to ensure the best content for you.
Don’t forget to:
• Leave your comment
• Share with friends
• Subscribe to the official Marcello de Souza YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@marcellodesouza_oficial
• Visit the official website: www.coachingevoce.com.br / www.marcellodesouza.com
• Visit my blog: www.marcellodesouza.com.br
• Check out the latest book: https://www.marcellodesouza.com.br/o-mapa-nao-e-o-territorio-o-territorio-e-voce/
• Commercial Contact: comercial@coachingevoce.com.br
• Write to me at: R. Antônio Lapa, 280 – Sixth Floor – Cambuí, Campinas – SP, 13025-240
Connect with me on social media:
• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/marcellodesouzaoficial/
• Instagram: @marcellodesouza_oficial
• Instagram: @coachingevoce
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/encontraroseumelhor/
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/coachingevoce.com.br/
Be a VIP List subscriber to receive exclusive weekly articles authored by me: contato@marcellodesouza.com.br
Portfolio: https://linktr.ee/marcellodesouza
Presentation and adaptation: Marcello de Souza

#IdentityInTransformation #IllusionOfTheEndOfHistory #PersonalGrowth #SelfDeception #ConstantChange #SelfDiscovery #InnerTransformation #CourageToGrow #FreeYourPotential #InspirationToLive #EmbraceYourImperfections #PathToAuthenticity #MeaningfulConnections #HumanityInEvolution #GratitudeForTheJourney #marcellodesouza #coaching #therapy #cognitivetherapy #findyourbestself