work across the lifespan - university of la verne · 2019. 3. 5. · chapter 9 lifespan...

Work Across theLifespan

Edited by

Boris B. BaltesDepartment of Psychology, Wayne State University,

Detroit, MI, United States

Cort W. RudolphDepartment of Psychology, Saint Louis University,

St. Louis, MO, United States

Hannes ZacherInstitute of Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom

525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101, United States

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

Copyright r 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic

or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system,

without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further

information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such

as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website:

www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the

Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience

broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment

may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating

and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such

information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including

parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume

any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability,

negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas

contained in the material herein.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN: 978-0-12-812756-8

For Information on all Academic Press publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Nikki Levy

Acquisition Editor: Emily Ekle

Editorial Project Manager: Barbara Makinster

Production Project Manager: Anusha Sambamoorthy

Cover Designer: Mark Rogers

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India

http://www.elsevier.com/permissions

https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Chapter 9

Lifespan Perspectives onSuccessful Aging at Work

Deborah A. Olson1 and Kenneth S. Shultz21Department of Management and Leadership, College of Business and Public Management,

University of La Verne, La Verne, CA, United States, 2Department of Psychology, California

State University, San Bernardino, CA, United States

The concept of successful aging was initially proposed in the gerontological

literature in the 1960s (e.g., Atchley, 1971; Cumming & Henry, 1961;

Havighurst, 1961; Neugarten, 1972). However, it wasn’t until Rowe and

Kahn (1987) published their paper on the MacArthur Model of successful

aging in Science that the focus shifted from defining successful aging as an

absence of disease and decline to asserting the importance of health and

growth as the basis for aging successfully (Pruncho & Carr, 2017). The origi-

nal MacArthur Model has three primary components: low risk of disease and

disease-related disability; maintenance of strong mental and physical func-

tion; and continued engagement with life, including both paid and unpaid

(volunteer) productive activities. However, successful aging in the original

MacArthur Model has been criticized for focusing primarily at the individual

level of personal agency (e.g., the need to engage in health promoting beha-

viors), while ignoring macro-level influences on successful aging which are

often out of the control of the individual, such as societal norms and policies

related to gender, race, and socioeconomic status differences (c.f., Katz &

Calasanti, 2015).

More recently, Rowe and Kahn (2015) discussed an extension of the orig-

inal McArthur Model of successful aging, labeling it “Successful Aging 2.0:

Conceptual expansions for the 21st century”. The interdisciplinary

MacArthur Research Network on an Aging Society came together in 2007 to

identify both the problems and potentialities of societal aging. The network

identified four key criteria related to successful aging at the societal level:

productivity and engagement; cohesion among generations; balancing the

215Work Across the Lifespan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812756-8.00009-8

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812756-8.00009-8

risks and benefits of an aging society; as well as resilience to stress, and sus-

tainability of functioning over time. Thus, to the extent that society can cre-

ate a context in which all four of these criteria can be optimized, the

individual’s ability to age successfully will be enhanced.

In that vein, Rowe and Kahn (2015) discussed three main goals for scho-

lars and policy makers who wish to optimize the context for successful aging

at both the societal and individual levels. First, core societal institutions

including schools, colleges, workplaces, hospitals, and families need to be

reengineered to serve an increasingly age diverse society better. Second,

there is the need to adopt a life course perspective to redistribute life’s major

activities (e.g., education, work, retirement, childrearing, leisure) across the

lifespan better to match the 21st century reality of an aging society. And,

third, Rowe and Kahn discuss the need to focus on human capital and the

productivity gains that are created by the “longevity dividend” provided by

extended lifespans.

One will notice immediately that all three of the goals touch upon the

areas of work and employment. The first goal of reengineering societal insti-

tutions, for example, prominently emphasizes the significant role of work-

places and successful aging. Meanwhile, the second goal of redistributing

major life activities includes realizing that learning does not end after one

completes high school or college, but rather continuous learning will need to

occur throughout our lifetimes. This need directly impacts our job opportu-

nities and ultimately how our careers unfold in the 21st century. The third

goal of focusing on human capital speaks directly to longer work lives,

whether individuals continue in their careers or engage in bridge employ-

ment or volunteer work as they transition from their career pursuits toward

retirement (Wang, Adams, Beehr, & Shultz, 2009). However, before we

explore successful aging at work more in depth, we will first discuss lifespan

perspectives on successful aging more broadly.

LIFESPAN PERSPECTIVES ON SUCCESSFUL AGING

While Successful Aging 2.0 takes a broad, macro approach to studying suc-

cessful aging (i.e., a societal level view), it is not technically a lifespan per-

spectives on successful aging. The lifespan perspective, as the name implies,

examines the entire life course from childhood to old age. However, as

Zacher and Rudolph (2017) recently noted, in practice most empirical

research using the lifespan approach focuses on older adults (e.g., age 60

years and older) who are often already outside the workplace. Below we

briefly discuss two, broad-based lifespan perspectives that have been applied

to, and are particularly relevant to our understanding of successful aging at

work. See Zacher and Rudolph (2017), as well as other related chapters in

this volume, for a full discussion of other relevant lifespan theories.

216 PART | II Lifespan Perspectives on Working and Careers

Baltes and Baltes (1990); Baltes (1997) selection, optimization, and com-

pensation model is a meta-theoretical perspectives on development across

the lifespan that focuses primarily on older individuals (age 60 years and

older) and approaches used to maintain basic functions of daily activities. In

the model, selection refers to the process individuals use to bring focus and

prioritize goals as they age. Whereas, optimization is about maximizing the

resources individuals currently possess (e.g., focusing more on crystalized

versus fluid intelligence as we age), while compensation is about bringing in

additional resources (e.g., using hearing aids to compensate for age-related

degradation in auditory capacity). While the model was initially applied to

gerontological issues of advanced aging, in the past few decades it has also

been applied to a multitude of organizational topics.

For example, in a recent summary of the research applying the selection,

optimization, and compensation framework to organizational issues,

Moghimi, Zacher, Scheibe, and Von Yperen (2017) found that implementa-

tion of the three strategies positively influences a variety of organizational

outcomes, including job satisfaction, employee engagement, and job perfor-

mance. Thus, the model clearly has had a significant influence on how orga-

nizational scientists have examined successful aging at work.

Another prominent theory of successful aging is the motivational theory

of lifespan development (Heckhausen, 2006). The theory proposes two con-

trol mechanisms that can be used to promote successful aging. The first, pri-

mary control mechanism involves attempts to control or influence one’s

environment. For example, seeking a new job that that has more supportive

leaders and coworkers would be a form of primary control whereby indivi-

duals take the initiative to change their environment to foster successful

aging. The secondary control mechanism involves attempts to adapt to one’s

existing environment rather than control or influence it directly. For exam-

ple, if an individual seeks social support from family or coworkers as an

adaptive mechanism to an unsupportive work environment, then the individ-

ual is not working to control the environment, but rather adapting to it via

relying on secondary control mechanisms. In many instances, it is not possi-

ble for the individual directly to influence or control the environment itself,

and so, as a result, secondary, adaptive mechanisms are a logical way to

facilitate successful aging. As the example above suggests, the motivational

theory of lifespan development, like the selection, optimization, and compen-

sation model, has direct applications to successful aging at work as well.

While lifespan theories of successful aging have been popular and well-

studied in the gerontological literature, they are not without their critics.

Most notably, lifespan theories often fail to integrate context into their expla-

nations of developmental change. Said another way, lifespan theories tend to

focus on the processes of intraindividual development (i.e., ontogenesis),

while often neglecting extraindividual influences of context on development

(i.e., sociogenesis). As a result, person-by-context interactions are typically

Lifespan Perspectives on Successful Aging at Work Chapter | 9 217

not examined (Zacher & Rudolph, 2017). Therefore, below we briefly dis-

cuss three perspectives on successful aging at work that take a broader

systems-based, multiactor (e.g., employees, organizations, families, govern-

ments) perspective, thus accounting for broader contextual factors.

SUCCESSFUL AGING AT WORK

As noted earlier, all three goals listed by Rowe and Kahn (2015) (i.e., reengi-

neering core societal institutions, adopting a life course perspective, and

focusing on human capital) speak conspicuously to the workplace. While

theorizing on successful aging in gerontology has traditionally focused on

individuals in the 60-years-old and older age range, focusing on successful

aging at work requires that we focus on a somewhat younger cohort, often in

the 40 to 60-year-old age range or what gerontologists often refer to as mid-

life. Although with labor force participation continuing to climb at older

ages (Toossi, 2013), an upper age limit closer to 70 or older is becoming

more appropriate when studying successful aging at work.

Some two decades ago, Abraham and Hansson (1995), as well as

Hansson, DeKoekkoek, Neece, and Patterson (1997), helped to bring the

concept of successful aging at work into the mainstream. In the former study,

Abraham and Hansson surveyed 224 working adults ranging in age from 40

to 69 and examined their use of selection, optimization, and compensation

strategies to maintain their levels of job performance despite age related

declines. Their results “suggest that the SOC model of successful aging may

be useful in explaining how older workers can maintain important job com-

petencies. Correlational evidence also suggests, however, that characteristics

of the job, workplace, and individuals may mediate the initiation and effec-

tiveness of SOC behaviors” (p. 94). Thus, the Abraham and Hansson study

served two formative purposes. First, it was one of the first studies to apply

the broadly defined selection, optimization, and compensation model of suc-

cessful aging specifically to the workplace. Second, the authors took a

systems-based, multiactor perspective regarding successful aging at work,

thus setting the stage for future researchers to integrate contextual factors,

such as the workplace policies toward older workers, when studying success-

ful aging at work.

Meanwhile, in a review paper two years later, Hansson et al. (1997) pro-

vided an examination and integration of the successful aging-at-work litera-

ture. While the timeframe of the review was somewhat limited (i.e.,

1992�6), it was the first comprehensive review of the literature on success-

ful aging specifically in the work context. In addition, while successful aging

in the workplace was only one of seven related areas reviewed (e.g., retire-

ment, careers, older worker health, age discrimination), it also served as an

overarching theme or organizing framework for the review. Thus, successful


aging at work became the meta-theoretical framework for reviewing a wide

variety of work-related issues particularly important for older workers (e.g.,

age discrimination).

In later empirical studies, Robson, Hansson, Abalos, and Booth (2006)

examined “criteria older workers use to evaluate their success in aging in the

workplace” (p. 156). Based on a survey of over 200 older workers, Robson

et al. identified five distinct self-reported criteria for successful aging at

work. These criteria included: (1) adaptability and health, (2) positive rela-

tionships, (3) occupational growth, (4) personal security, and (5) continued

focus and achievement of personal goals. Each of the five dimensions was

positively correlated to workers’ self-perceptions of successful aging (i.e.,

ratings of how well they had aged compared to their same-aged peers), with

adaptability and health having the strongest relationship and personal secu-

rity having the weakest relationship with workers’ self-perceptions of suc-

cessful aging at work.

In a follow-up article, Robson and Hansson (2007) focused on behavioral

strategies (i.e., proactive behaviors) in which older workers engaged to age

successfully at work. In a two-part study of over 250 workers, Robson and

Hansson identified seven dimensions of behavioral strategies related to suc-

cessful aging at work via factor analyses: (1) relationship development, (2)

ensuring security, (3) continuous learning, (4) stress relief, (5) skill exten-

sion, (6) career management, and (7) conscientiousness. All seven of these

behavioral strategies were positively correlated with workers’ self-

perceptions of successful aging at work identified in their 2006 study. In

addition, the worker’s age moderated the relationships between the behav-

ioral strategies of relationship development and skill extension with per-

ceived success, where the strategies were less strongly related to perceived

success among older compared to younger workers.

More recently, Zacher (2015a,b) provided a working definition, and a

theoretical framework, for investigating successful aging at work. Zacher

and his colleagues (e.g., Zacher, 2015a,b; Zacher & Rudolph, 2017) have

recently provided comprehensive reviews of the successful aging-at-work lit-

erature. For example, Zacher (2015a) offers one of the first explicit, clear,

and concrete definitions of successful aging at work. Namely,

Successful aging at work involves a comparison of employees’ intraindividual

age-related trajectories of a work outcome over time and across working

lifespan with other employees’ age-related trajectories of the same outcome.

Employees whose trajectories deviate positively from the average trajectory

are aging successfully at work (p. 9).

Zacher then goes on to outline four key themes of successful aging at

work. First, he examines the criteria associated with successful aging at

work. That is, both the objective and subjective work outcomes that are


valued by both employees and organizations. Next, he tackles the need to

focus on explanatory mechanism behind successful aging at work, such as

investigating age as a potential moderator. He then moves on to discuss the

potential constraining and facilitating factors that help to explain differences

in successful aging outcomes across different ages. Finally, he emphasizes

the need to look at temporal patterns that can be operationalized by examin-

ing intraindividual age-related changes in criteria over time and across the

lifespan.

In laying out these four key themes, Zacher (2015a) provides one of the

first comprehensive theoretical frameworks for fully investigating and under-

standing successful aging at work. He then provides a series of figures that

would allow researchers to compare their findings to see if, in fact, their

results support his definition of successful aging at work. In addition, Zacher

summarizes his theoretical framework of successful aging at work in a

figure that has employee age as the key antecedent, a variety of personal

(e.g., knowledge, skills) and contextual (e.g., work characteristics) modera-

tors and mediators, and a variety of work outcomes (e.g., work motivation,

job performance, turnover, and occupational health and wellbeing) (see

Zacher, 2015a, Fig. 2, p. 11).

Kooij (2015a,b) also recently outlined her own theoretical perspectives

on successful aging at work. The focus of her theoretical model was on employ-

ees’ proactive behaviors, the maintenance of the fit between employees and their

jobs, and sustainable management of personal resources (i.e., work ability). As a

result, in Kooij’s model of successful aging at work, employees need to play a

proactive role in maintaining their physical and mental health, work motivation,

and work ability in order to sustain performance in their present and future

work lives. That is, they need to engage in both proactive person-job fit and

proactive career behaviors to maintain person-job fit. In addition, Kooij argues

that the effect of a continuous person-job fit on the maintenance of health,

motivation, and work ability is mediated by employees’ effective management

of their personal resources. Thus, just as with the selection, optimization, and

compensation model discussed earlier, engaging in maintenance behaviors may

require a tradeoff between depletion of resources by engaging in such proactive

behaviors and the gains obtained in person-job and career fit by engaging in

those same behaviors.

In the remainder of our chapter, we will use Kooij’s (2015a,b) model as

our meta-theoretical framework that emphasizes the employee’s active role

in promoting successful aging at work (see also, Zacher & Kooij, 2017).

Engaging in proactive behaviors, in Kooij’s model, leads to maintaining

person�job fit throughout the life course, which, in turn, leads to key

successful aging at work outcomes such as maintaining one’s health, motivation,

and work ability. Therefore, we next incorporate several prominent theories that

speak directly to engaging in proactive work behaviors that promote successful

aging at work.


PROACTIVE BEHAVIORS: ACTIVELY SHAPING WORK ANDRELATIONSHIPS

Adapting and responding to changes and opportunities positively contributes

to successful development over the course of one’s lifespan. Active adapta-

tion to both internal and external changes is essential for successful adapta-

tion. Changes can be imposed externally (i.e., through market and consumer

shifts that impact products, services, and jobs), but also emerge naturally as

part of experiences as we age (i.e., graduations, marriages, children, aging

parents). The decisions and choices that individuals make in response to the

changes they face impact the outcomes they experience both personally and

professionally. Proactive behaviors focused on approaches that optimize per-

formance and eliminating and/or reducing obstacles that interfere with prog-

ress toward desired outcomes impacts successful aging at work.

Over the life course, individuals who make choices to use their strengths

at work and prioritize tasks to invest time working on tasks they find most

interesting and engaging tend to optimize their performance overall

(Cleveland, Fisher, & Walters, 2017). To respond effectively to changes,

tasks that are unattainable or unrealistic considering available resources or

the prevailing political environment in the organization (i.e., understanding

what can be done within the culture of the organization) need to be aban-

doned. Kooji (2015a) provides a comprehensive review of the proactive

behaviors in which individuals can engage to facilitate successful aging at

work, including seeking additional training and mentoring, as well as goal

setting and emotion regulation. In addition, the lifespan development litera-

ture supports the contention that as individuals age, they take an active role

in responding to and shaping the environment in ways that optimize the out-

comes they value given the resources that are available to them (Rudolph,

2016).

In addition, the literature focused on person-environment fit and proactive

behavior in organizational psychology delineates a wide range of behaviors

that are related to successful aging at work. Job crafting serves as a linchpin

integrating the proactive approach individuals use to optimize the fit between

the strengths they possess and the targeted results desired by the organization

to optimize person�environment fit (Kira, Van Eijnatten, & Balkin, 2010;

Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Personal strengths are unique combinations

of characteristics and behaviors that impact how individuals approach work

to optimize relationships and performance (Wood, Linley, Maltby, Kashdan,

& Hurling, 2011). Strengths are not static, however. Over time, individuals

proactively create opportunities to use their strengths at work and expand

their knowledge and skills that contribute to the development of their

strengths (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Lang & Carstensen, 2002; Wang,

Olson, & Shultz, 2013). The job demands-resources model of job crafting

delineated by Tims and Bakker (2010) increased the research and focus on


the importance of job crafting as a process that optimizes individual well-

being and performance.

OPTIMIZING PERSON�JOB FIT: CRAFTING TO STRENGTHS

Strategies to optimize person-job fit have been found to predict performance,

engagement, and satisfaction at work (Hartner, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002;

Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). The concept and practices

related to job crafting have been utilized to optimize person-job fit since the

late 1980s. Considering the continuous internal and external changes that

impact organizations today, job crafting offers a more adaptive and timely

response to rapidly changing conditions than the traditional process used by

organizations to redesign jobs.

Berg, Dutton, and Wrzesniewski (2013) asserted that individual’s

strengths, motives, and interests serve as a unique lens through which to

develop strategies to adapt job tasks and processes to improve job perfor-

mance. Job crafting can take multiple forms and thus contributes to success-

ful aging at work through the actions individuals take to create and sustain a

clear and evolving definition of their work, as well as who they are in rela-

tionship to their work. In addition, job crafting is an active process through

which individuals take the initiative to sustain meaning and engagement in

their work. This process impacts individual motivation, engagement, and

well-being through fostering the development of strengths and skills that

increase person-job fit. More specifically, job crafting specifically focuses on

changing the perceived characteristics of the job that differentiates it from

other proactive work behaviors, such as taking personal initiative (Demerouti

& Bakker, 2014).

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) identified three primary dimensions of

job crafting behaviors: task, cognitive, and relational. With task crafting,

individuals focus on changing the boundaries of their work and the

approaches they use to complete tasks. This form of crafting allows indivi-

duals to adapt to changes in performance requirements in response to outside

pressures (i.e., to increase performance related to new competitors in the

market, implementation of technology that changes the approaches and pro-

cesses used to complete tasks) and also develop new ways to improve task

performance and increase efficiency by applying knowledge and experience

in new ways. Changes associated with task crafting benefit the organization

and team by increasing performance and efficiency related to achieving key

goals set by the organization. Task crafting also benefits individuals by

maintaining interesting and challenging work that provides opportunities for

continuous learning and developing new approaches to complete tasks.

Cognitive crafting is the process of reframing how one views one’s role.

Individuals may reframe the tasks they need to complete by focusing on the

overall purpose of their work and view their work as an integrated whole.


For example, teachers may focus on the purpose of facilitating the develop-

ment of students to expand their critical thinking skills in ways that allow

them to more successfully navigate the plethora of information that bom-

bards them daily rather than focusing on the (sometimes excruciating) details

associated with writing lesson plans, grading assignments, and managing dis-

ruptive classroom behaviors. As a result, cognitive crafting changes the

boundaries of how individuals see their jobs (e.g., I am influencing students’

lives by fostering and nurturing the development of their critical thinking

and leadership skills).

Relational crafting emphasizes the importance of who individuals work

with as they complete tasks. Individuals seek out others whom they prefer to

work with as they complete tasks and assignments. This includes individuals

with whom they enjoy working who may: (1) possess complementary skills

that assist them in completing work in a high-quality manner, (2) provide

unique perspectives to help them develop creative approaches and innova-

tions, as well as (3) fulfill social needs through working with and developing

collaborative relationships and meaningful attachments at work (Rath, 2007).

In a recent field study, Kooij, van Woerkom, Wilkenloh, Dorenbosch,

and Denissen (2017) implemented an intervention to identify the impact of

crafting jobs focused specifically on crafting tasks to utilize individuals’

strengths and interests. Results from their intervention demonstrated that job

crafting initiated by the individuals who were specifically linked to their

strengths positively impacted older worker performance and effectiveness,

but did not impact the performance of younger workers. This is an important

contribution to our understanding the impact of job crafting on successful

aging at work. Specifically, as employees age, they develop more self-

confidence, self-awareness, and dominance at work, which positively contri-

butes to their ability to craft their roles at work and align their actions with

their strengths in ways that optimizes performance (Roberts, Walton, &

Viechtbauer, 2006). Therefore, one important factor in aging successfully at

work is related to self-awareness and building an environment that facilitates

the ability to use ones’ strengths in meaningful ways.

In an effort to synthesize the literature on job crafting, Rudolph, Katz,

Lavigne, and Zacher (2017) recently completed a meta-analysis of the

research conducted to date on job crafting related to proactive behaviors that

facilitate and optimize person�job fit. They used the four dimensions of job

crafting proposed by Tims, Bakker, and Derks (2012). The dimensions were:

(1) seeking out increasingly more challenging work and volunteering to

work outside one’s current role; (2) reducing and eliminating job tasks that

negatively impact physical, cognitive, or emotional well-being through mini-

mizing work/life imbalances and excessive workload; (3) expanding auton-

omy and task variety to facilitate structural resources that positively impact

motivation; and (4) expanding social resources that increase support from

colleagues and seeking out feedback and advice from others at work. Results


showed that overall job crafting, as a composite of all four dimensions

defined in Tims et al, was related to agreeableness, conscientiousness, extra-

version, and openness to experience (Big Five dimensions), proactive person-

ality, and general self-efficacy.

MOTIVATIONAL MAINTENANCE AND SUCCESSFUL AGING:INTRINSIC GOALS

The motivational maintenance perspective asserts that motivation remains

stable over the life course. This stability is fueled by interests and strengths

that are actively nurtured by the choices and decisions made by individuals

to engage in work that they find motivating (Krapp, 2005). Motivational

maintenance over the life course is supported by research in the adult con-

tinuing education literature (Gegenfurtner & Vauras, 2012), as well as

research on workplace curiosity and aging (Reio & Callahan, 2004; Reio &

Choi, 2006; Reio & Wiswell, 2000). In an organizational context, curiosity

is defined as a state of emotional arousal that motivates information seeking

and exploratory actions that reduce uncertainty while also facilitating learn-

ing. Motivation that is fueled by curiosity becomes self-sustaining over the

course of one’s working life as new situations and challenges emerge. As a

result, motivation is sustained as new problems and opportunities arise,

which in turn require individuals to develop new approaches and learn new

skills to optimize performance.

Motives and values are influenced and refined through experiences across

the life course, including important experiences at work (Rudolph, Baltes, &

Zabel, 2013). Work values can also be influenced by developments occurring

within one’s occupation or overall cultural trends. For example, in the 1980s

and 1990s, the ability to afford to retire early was seen as an important out-

come that, when achieved, contributed to individuals’ ability to freely pursue

leisure and personal interests outside of paid work roles. However, the trend

more recently has been toward working longer (Toossi, 2013) not only to

address economic needs for individuals, but also to meet important intrinsic

needs related to need for achievement (i.e., continued learning and develop-

ment within one’s area of expertise) and need for affiliation (i.e., social

needs and the importance of friends at work). This more recent cultural trend

to continue in work roles past traditional retirement age to meet one’s intrin-

sic needs is supported by the theory of motivational maintenance across the

life course (Gegenfurtner & Vauras, 2012; Krapp, 2005).

Kooij, de Lange, Jansen, Kanfer, and Kikkers (2011) meta-analysis found

a positive relationship between aging and the importance of intrinsic need

satisfaction at work over the life course. Specifically, as workers age, they

expressed a higher need for intrinsic motive satisfaction related to feelings of

accomplishment, use of skills, autonomy, and enjoyment of work. Results

showed that as workers age, they placed less emphasis on extrinsic need


satisfaction related to financial compensation and prestige (Kooji et al.,

2011). The results of this meta-analysis found that as one ages, the motive to

engage in continuous learning (i.e., growth need) declined. This was inter-

preted as supporting the selection, optimization, and compensation model

that asserts that as individuals age they compensate for losses, related to cog-

nitive declines that make it more challenging to learn new information and

develop new skills, by reducing the amount of time they invest in formal

training activities at work.

An alternative interpretation is that as one ages, individuals have a broad-

er network of people to whom they can turn for information and training via

informal interactions, as well as their ability to engage in autonomous learn-

ing (i.e., web searches and self-initiated tutorials) (Marsick & Watkins,

2001). As a result, successful aging at work may indeed be impacted by

one’s ability to maintain and expand learning through drawing on resources

that have been nurtured over the course of one’s career and integrate those

people and resources as situations warrant (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995).

MEASURES OF CAREER SUCCESS: THE IMPORTANCE OFMEANINGFUL WORK ACROSS THE LIFE COURSE

A comprehensive definition of career success needs to include both subjec-

tive (e.g., meaningful work linked to purpose and autonomy) and objective

(e.g., economic, promotion, prestige) measures (Olson & Shultz, 2013).

Decades of research (Baltes, Rudolph, & Bal, 2012; MOWIRT, 1987) indi-

cates that across occupations, age, and cultures, up to 95% of individuals

indicated that they would continue working even if they did not have to do

so for economic reasons. Individuals measure the success of each career step

quantitatively (e.g., promotions, salary increases) and qualitatively (e.g., per-

ceived autonomy, learning and growth, feelings of making a contribution).

However, the relative importance of financial and nonfinancial outcomes

received for investing time and energy at work changes over the course of

one’s career. For example, Loi and Shultz (2007) found that the emphasis on

pay and benefits is highest at midlife due to costs related to children, aging

parents, college costs, and mortgage, and that once those obligations are met,

the importance of financial measures of success decline as one ages. Thus,

successful aging at work is linked to both objective and subjective outcomes

achieved over the life course. This is important since needs and aspirations

change as individuals go through different life stages (e.g., graduation from

college, marriage/committed relationships, birth of children, aging parents).

Finding meaning in one’s work roles is essential throughout the life

course (Fairlie, 2010; Zacher, 2015a). For example, Fairlie (2013) found that

engagement in meaningful work impacted feelings of success at work across

all individuals in the workforce, regardless of their age. Rather than focus on

spurious claims that younger workers are in search of meaning at work


(Salzberg, 2012) or only as individuals age, meaningful work has a greater

impact on sustained motivation than extrinsic rewards (Carstensen, 1995,

2006), the focus of organizational leaders can be on reinforcing the meaning-

fulness of work employees are engaged in at all ages and career stages.

Dimensions of meaning gained through work are related to important out-

comes that individuals seek over their life course (Kotter-Gruhn, Wiest,

Zurek, & Scheibe, 2009), what makes people happy (Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, &

Kasser, 2001), and are linked to higher levels of well-being (Keyes, 2007;

McKnight & Kashdan, 2009).

While there are individual differences in how meaningful work is defined,

common attributes include: work provides the opportunity to reach one’s full

potential; contributes to one’s ability to leave a legacy, fulfill one’s life pur-

pose; is congruent with one’s values and goals; fulfills the need for personal

accomplishment; and facilitates fully one’s ability to actualize their potential

(Baumeister, 1991; Emmons, 1999; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003;

Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Rosso, Dekas, and Wrzesniewski

(2010) offered an integrative model that delineates four major pathways to

finding meaningful work. This model provides a synthesis of agency (i.e.,

the drive to assert, expand, master, and create through one’s individual

actions) and communion (i.e., the drive to develop meaningful connections,

attachments, and relationships with others). The four pathways to meaningful

work delineated by Rosso et al include: (1) Individuation whereby meaning

is created through actions that distinguish individuals as competent, valuable,

and worthy; (2) Contribution creates meaning through taking action to make

a significant impact by being of service to something or someone beyond

oneself; (3) Connection reflects meaningfulness through engaging in actions

that create alignment between individual “current” versus “ideal” self; and

(4) Unification reflects meaningfulness through creating harmony among

individuals and principles that they value. In summary, the definition of

what is meaningful may evolve as one’s career unfolds and new levels of

mastery are achieved through one’s work (Olson & Shultz, 2013). Thus, suc-

cessful aging at work is related to the experience of meaning at work that

contributes to feelings of success and accomplishment as one’s career

unfolds (Fairlie, 2013).

CAREER SELF-MANAGEMENT

Career changes and transitions occur across the lifespan that also impacts

successful aging at work (Yoo & Lee, 2017). Managing these changes and

transitions is an essential aspect of career self-management and thus an inte-

gral part of successful aging at work. Changes in careers can be precipitated

by both macro- and micro-level conditions and opportunities. At the macro

level, economic changes and the patterns of population aging impact career

options and alternatives. The economic downturns in 2000 and 2008 in the


United States, for example, significantly impacted the need for workers to

stay in the work force longer to recover the financial and pension losses that

were caused by both economic downturns.

In addition, organizations have also changed their shape and flattened

their structures in efforts to streamline and maintain competitiveness in the

global markets. These changes have led to more turbulent and less

predictable career options (Liu, Englar-Carlson, & Minichiello, 2012),

which, in turn, impacts the need for individuals to assume full responsibility

for forging career paths that are customized to their needs, abilities, and per-

sonal circumstances (Jung & Takeuchi, 2017). What has traditionally been

the purview of organizations to provide career paths and continuous develop-

ment of individuals to meet the needs for organizational growth and market

expansion has been replaced with the emphasis on processes that are owned

and managed by individuals (Shultz & Olson, 2013; Yoo & Lee, 2017).

This macro evolution occurs based on the deep understanding that I have

to manage my own career. This includes taking specific steps to identify

work that meets one’s needs and is congruent with one’s values (DeVos &

Seegers, 2013). Ongoing environmental scanning for opportunities and net-

working opportunities to identify and create options for the near and long-

term future impact one’s ability to successfully age at work (Kanfer &

Ackerman, 2004). In the current organizational context, workers are clearly

aware of the importance of continuous adaptation to new circumstances that

parallel developmental milestones that occur over the life course (Kahana,

Kelley-Moore, & Kahana, 2012). As individuals age, they have more under-

standing of their options and greater self-awareness about which strategies

and tactics best help them respond to time pressure, interpersonal stress,

changes at work, and other work-related factors (Parker & Collins, 2010:

Schwartz, 2007, Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001).

BROADER TRENDS AND WORK ABILITY

Organizations continue to change to adapt to their environments. As such, to

remain successful, individuals need to adapt to age successfully at work

(Shultz & Olson, 2013). For example, organizational structures (i.e., hierar-

chy toward matrix, organic organizational designs) and cultures (i.e., corpo-

rate headquarters dominated by the country of origin versus globalization;

multicultural workers) can change significantly over the course of one’s

career. As a result, proactive planning and agile responses are essential for

successful aging at work (McGonagle, Fisher, Barnes-Farrell, & Grosh,

2015). What was not imaginable 30 years ago is the reality today; defined

benefits for retirement are virtually nonexistent for most jobs, with the shift

to defined contributions and independent planning for one’s nonwork/retire-

ment years being the norm (Hardy & Reyes, 2016). Older workers’ experi-

ence and background can assist them in understanding the evolution of this


complexity. It is clear that there is a need now to replace age-graded life

course with an age-integrated life course (Hardy & Reyes, 2016; Shultz &

Olson, 2013). While removing the age-graded expectations and boundaries

can cause chaos and difficulty in the short run, in the long run this will lead

to increased successful aging at work (De Vos & Seegers, 2013; King,

2004).

In addition, broader contextual factors, such as organizational climate,

can impact successful aging at work. In fact, Zacher and Yang (2016)

recently introduced the concept of organizational climate for successful

aging and found that it was a moderator of the relationship between employ-

ees’ age and their focus on opportunities. In turn, a focus on opportunities

was related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and motivation to

continue working after official retirement age. Thus, organizational climate

for successful aging serves as an important contextual resource for older

workers hoping to age successfully at work.

The concept of work ability (Ilmarinen, 2009a; Kumashiro, 2009)

addresses successful aging at work to the extent that it focuses on how older

workers maintain their employability as they age. Ilmarinen (2009b) notes

that work ability is basically “a balance between a person’s resources and

work demands” (p. 61). At the most basic level, or foundation, is a worker’s

functional capacity (e.g., physical and mental health). At the next level are

competencies (e.g., up-to-date knowledge, skills, and abilities). The third

level consists of value (e.g., attitudes and motivations). Accordingly, positive

attitudes toward work and appropriate motivation to continue working are

needed to remain employable as one ages. These levels of work ability are

placed in the context with the work itself, including the environment, work

demands, as well the attitudes and behaviors of organizational leaders. In

addition, societal norms and expectations, as well as the personal resources

of the worker (e.g., wealth, social support networks) also set the context for

the various factors that are likely to increase one’s work ability.

Thus, to the extent that older workers can combine the earlier levels to

create high levels of work ability within the context of the work itself and

the work environment, the worker is likely to create a scenario that is more

likely to lead to successful aging at work. As a result, the concept of work

ability provides yet another avenue to look at successful aging at work,

which puts a heavy emphasis on personal agency of maintaining competen-

cies and motivations, while also taking into account the broader context

within which this transpires.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURERESEARCH

We began this chapter by reviewing the literature on successful aging from a

gerontological perspective in order to provide a historical context. We next


moved to examining successful aging at work, specifically within the lens of

lifespan development. While the formal research and theorizing on success-

ful aging at work specifically is relatively new, it is beginning to grow expo-

nentially. More importantly, clear and concrete definitions and models of

successful aging at work have recently emerged (Kooij, 2015a; Zacher,

2015a). We then used Kooij’s (2015a) model of successful aging at work as

our meta-theoretical framework for exploring various theories and models of

proactive behaviors (e.g., work ability, job crafting, motivational mainte-

nance) which directly inform modern conceptions of successful aging at

work.

Several directions for future research come in to focus as we ponder how

best to proceed in investigating the construct of successful aging at work.

First, it is clear when taking a lifespan perspective that a systems-based, mul-

tiactor perspective (i.e., employees, organizations, family and other social

support networks, governments) is needed to fully understand not only how

successful aging at work should be pursued, but also why some strategies

will be more effective than others (Kooij, 2015a; Thomas, Hardy, Cutcher,

& Ainsworth, 2014). While the primary focus should be on the employees’

individual agency and proactivity behaviors they must pursue to achieve suc-

cessful aging at work (i.e., taking an ontogenetic perspective with regard to

intraindividual differences in aging), it is clear that the employee’s actions

take place in a broader organizational and societal context (i.e., taking a

sociogenetic perspective). Zacher and Kooij (2017) provide a wide-ranging

model of normative age-related changes in person characteristics and how

those in turn impact how various proactive behaviors should be prioritized

across the work lifespan. In addition, they provide a dozen different research

propositions with regard to aging and proactivity at work that will help to

guide future research.

Second, while numerous proactive behaviors have been noted here and in

the literature reviewed, what are the potential synergies among the various

strategies (Kooij, 2015a)? That is, might some proactive behaviors go

together better and more efficiently than others in promoting successful

aging at work? In addition, how may these combinations change as the onto-

genetic process plays out over time for individual workers? Future research

on successful aging at work needs to explore these possibilities across work-

ers and various proactive behaviors.

Third, there is a clear need in future research to explore both subject and

objective successful aging at work. With the nature of work and the work-

place rapidly changing and evolving in the 21st century (Shultz & Olson,

2013), how individual workers subjectively define what successful aging at

work means to them will also be rapidly evolving. Robson et al. (2006) pro-

vided an excellent empirical start for exploring various aspects of subjective

aging at work, however additional work is needed to confirm and expand

their seminal work in this area.


REFERENCES

Abraham, J. D., & Hansson, R. O. (1995). Successful aging at work: An applied study of selec-

tion, optimization, and compensation through impression management. Journals of

Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 50, P94�P103.

Atchley, R. C. (1971). Retirement and leisure participation: Continuity or crisis? The

Gerontology, 11, 13�17.

Baltes, P. B. (1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization,

and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. American Psychologist, 52,

366�380.

Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The

model of selective optimization with compensation. In P. B. Baltes, & M. M. Baltes (Eds.),

Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences (pp. 1�34). New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Baltes, B. B., Rudolph, C. W., & Bal, A. C. (2012). A review of aging theories and modern

work perspectives. In J. W. Hedge, & W. C. Borman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of work

and aging. Oxford University Press, Inc.

Baumeister, R. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford Press.

Berg, J. A., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work.

In D. J. Kik, Z. S. Byrne, & M. S. Steger (Eds.), Purpose and meaning in the workplace

(pp. 81�104). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, Discover your strengths. New York: The Free

Press.

Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 4(5), 151�156.

Carstensen, L. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science, 312,

1913�1915.

Cleveland, J. N., Fisher, G. G., & Walters, K. M. (2017). Positive organizations and maturing

workers. In L. G. Oades, M. F. Steger, A. D. Fave, & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley

Blackwell handbook of the psychology of positivity and strengths-based approaches at work

(pp. 389�414). Malden: MA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cumming, E., & Henry, W. E. (1961). Growing old: The process of disengagement. New York

NY: Basic Books.

Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Job crafting. In M. C. W. Peeters, J. de Jonge, & T. W.

Taris (Eds.), An introduction to contemporary work psychology (1st ed.). John Wiley &

Sons, Ltd.

De Vos, A., & Seegers, J. (2013). Self-directed career attitude and retirement intentions. Career

Development International, 18, 155�172.

Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality in

personality. New York: Guilford Press.

Fairlie, P. (2010). The Meaningful Work Inventory: Development and initial validation. Paper

presented at the 118th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San

Diego, CA.

Fairlie, P. (2013). Age and generational differences in work psychology: Facts, fictions, and

meaningful work. In J. Field, R. J. Burke, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of

Aging, Work, and Society (pp. 186�208). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Gegenfurtner, A., & Vauras, M. (2012). Age-related differences in the relation between motiva-

tion to learn and transfer of training in adult continuing education. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 37, 33�46.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-12-812756-8.00009-8/sbref1























































Hansson, R. O., DeKoekkoek, P. D., Neece, W. M., & Patterson, D. W. (1997). Successful aging

at work: Annual review, 1992-1996: The older workers and transitions to retirement.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 202�233.

Hardy, M., & Reyes, A. (2016). Theories of work and retirement: Culture, Trust and the Social

Contract. In V. Bengtson, & R. Settersten (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Aging (3rd edi-

tion). New York: Springer.

Hartner, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between

employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268�279.

Havighurst, R. J. (1961). Successful aging. The Gerontologist, 1, 8�13.

Heckhausen, J. (2006). Developmental regulation in adulthood: Age-normative and sociostruc-

tural constraints as adaptive challenges. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1995). A Life-span theory of control. Psychological Review, 102,

284�304.

Ilmarinen, J. (2009a). Work ability—a comprehensive concept for occupational health research

and prevention. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 35, 1�5.

Ilmarinen, J. (2009b). Aging and work: An international perspective. In S. J. Czaja, & J. Sharit

(Eds.), Aging and work: Issues and implications in a changing landscape (pp. 51�73).

Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

Jung, Y., & Takeuchi, N. (2017). A lifespan perspective for understanding career self-

management and satisfaction: The role of developmental human resource practices and orga-

nizational support. Human Relations, published on-line.

Kahana, E., Kelley-Moore, J. A., & Kahana, B. (2012). Proactive aging: A longitudinal study

of stress, resources, agency, and well-being in late life. Aging & Mental Health, 16,

438�451.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation.

Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 440�458.

Katz, S., & Calasanti, T. (2015). Critical perspectives on successful aging: Does it “appeal more

than it illuminates”? The Gerontologist, 55, 26�33.

Keyes, C. L. M. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complemen-

tary strategy for improving national mental health. American Psychologist, 62, 95�108.

King, Z. (2004). Career self-management: Its nature, causes and consequences. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 65, 112�133.

Kira, M., Van Eijnatten, F. M., & Balkin, D. B. (2010). Crafting sustainable work: Development

of personal resources. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23, 616�632.

Kooij, D. T. A. M. (2015a). Successful aging at work: The active role of employees. Work,

Aging, and Retirement, 1, 309�319.

Kooij, D. T. A. M. (2015b). Clarifying and discussing successful aging at work and the active

role of employees. Work, Aging and Retirement, 1, 334�339.

Kooij, D. T. A. M., de Lange, A. H., Jansen, P. G. W., Kanfer, R., & Kikkers, J. S. E. (2011).

Age and work-related motives: Results of a meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 32(2), 197�225.

Kooij, D. T. A. M., van Woerkom, M., Wilkenloh, J., Dorenbosch, L., & Denissen, J. J. A.

(2017). Job crafting towards strengths and interests: The effects of a job crafting intervention

on person-job fit and the role of age. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(6), 971�981.

Kotter-Gruhn, D., Wiest, M., Zurek, P. P., & Scheibe, A. (2009). What is it we are longing for:

Psychological and demographic factors influencing the contents of Sehnsucht (life longings).

Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 428�437.



































































Krapp, A. (2005). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical consid-

erations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383�409.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals

fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-

supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281�342.

Kumashiro, M. (Ed.), (2009). Promotion of workability toward productive aging. The Hague,

The Netherlands: CRC Press/Taylor Francis Group.

Lang, F. R., & Carstensen, L. L. (2002). Time counts: Future time perspective, goals, and social

relationships. Psychology and Aging, 17, 125�139.

Liu, Y., Englar-Carlson, M., & Minichiello, V. (2012). Midlife career transitions of men who are

scientists and engineers: A narrative study. The Career Development Quarterly, 60,

273�288.

Loi, J. L., & Shultz, K. S. (2007). Why older adults seek employment: Differing motivations

among subgroups. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 26, 274�289.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for

Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 25�34.

McGonagle, A. K., Fisher, G. G., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Grosh, J. W. (2015). Individual and

work factors related to perceived work ability and labor force outcomes. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 100, 376�398.

McKnight, P. E., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Purpose in life as a system that creates and sustains

health and well-being: An integrative, testable theory. Review of General Psychology, 13,

242�251.

Meaning of Work International Research Team (WOWIRT). (1987). The meaning of working.

London: Academic Press.

Moghimi, D., Zacher, H., Scheibe, S., & Von Yperen, N. W. (2017). The selection, optimization,

and compensation model in the work context: A systematic review and meta-analysis of two

decades of research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 247�275.

Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). The construction of meaning through vital

engagement. In C. L. M. Keyes, & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the

life well-lived (pp. 83�104). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Neugarten, B. L. (1972). Personality and the aging process. The Gerontologist, 12, 9�15.

Olson, D. A., & Shultz, K. S. (2013). Employability and career success: The need for comprehen-

sive definitions of career success. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(1), 17�20.

Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple pro-

active behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633�662.

Pruncho, R., & Carr, D. (2017). Successful aging 2.0: Resilience and beyond. Journals of

Gerontology: Social Sciences, 72, 201�203.

Rath, T. (2007). StrengthsFinder2.0. New York: New York: GallupPress.

Reio, T. G., Jr., & Callahan, J. L. (2004). Affect, curiosity, and socialization-related learning: A path

analysis of antecedents to job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 3�22.

Reio, T. G., Jr., & Choi, N. (2006). Novelty seeking in adulthood: Increases accompany decline.

Journal of Genetic Psychology, 165, 119�133.

Reio, T. G., Jr., & Wiswell, A. (2000). Field investigation of the relationship among adult curi-

osity, workplace learning, and job performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly,

11(1), 5�30.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in per-

sonality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological

Bulletin, 132, 1�25.




































































Robson, S. M., & Hansson, R. O. (2007). Strategic self development for successful aging at

work. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 64, 331�359.

Robson, S. M., Hansson, R. O., Abalos, A., & Booth, M. (2006). Successful aging: Criteria for

aging well in the workplace. Journal of Career Development, 33, 156�177.

Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical

integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91�127.

Rowe, J. S., & Kahn, R. L. (2015). SuccessfulAging 2.0: Conceptual expansions for the 21st

century. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B, Psychological Scienes and Social Sciences,

70, 593�596.

Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1987). Human aging: Usual and successful. Science, 237,

143�149.

Rudolph, C. W. (2016). Lifespan developmental perspectives on working: A literature review of

motivational theories. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2, 130�158.

Rudolph, C. W., Baltes, B. B., & Zabel, K. L. (2013). Age and work motives. In J. Field, R. J.

Burke, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Aging, Work and Society. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Rudolph, C. W., Katz, I. M., Lavigne, K. N., & Zacher, H. (2017). Job crafting: A meta-analysis

of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes. Journal

of Vocational Behavior.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68�78.

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719�727.

Salzberg, B. (2012). What millennials want most: A career that actually matters. Retrieved on

June 15, 2017 from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/07/03/what-

millennials-want-most-a-career-that-actually-matters/#54487294d50e.

Schwartz, T. (2007). Manage your energy, not your time. Harvard Business Review, 85(10), 67�73.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudi-

nal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54,

845�874.

Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying

events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social


Shultz, K. S., & Olson, D. A. (2013). The changing nature of work and retirement. In M. Wang

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of retirement (pp. 543�558). New York: Oxford University

Press, Ch 33.

Thomas, R. J., Hardy, C., Cutcher, L., & Ainsworth, S. (2014). What’s age got to do with it? On

the critical analysis of age and organizations. Organization Studies, 35, 1569�1584.

Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a model of individual job redesign. SA

Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36, 1�9.

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting

scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173�186.

Toossi, M. (2013). Labor force projections to 2022: The labor force participation rate continues

to fall. Monthly Labor Review, 136, 1�28.

Wang, M., Adams, G. A., Beehr, T. A., & Shultz, K. S. (2009). Career issues at the end of one’s

career: Bridge employment and retirement. In S. G. Baugh, & S. E. Sullivan (Eds.),

Maintaining focus, energy, and options over the life span (pp. 135�162). Charlotte, NC:

Information Age Publishing (IAP), Ch 6.

































https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/07/03/what-millennials-want-most-a-career-that-actually-matters/#54487294d50e

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/07/03/what-millennials-want-most-a-career-that-actually-matters/#54487294d50e
































Wang, M., Olson, D. A., & Shultz, K. S. (2013). Mid and late career issues: psycho-social

dynamics and perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T. B., & Hurling, R. (2011). Using personal

and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study

and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and Individual

Differences, 50, 15�19.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active craf-

ters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179�201.

Yoo, S. K., & Lee, H. (2017). Positive approaches to mid-life careers. In L. G. Oades, M. F.

Steger, A. D. Fave, & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology

of Positivity and Strengths-Based Approaches at Work (pp. 366�388). Malden: MA: John

Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Zacher, H. (2015a). Successful aging at work. Work, Aging and Retirement, 1, 4�25.

Zacher, H. (2015b). The importance of a precise definition, comprehensive model, and critical

discussion of successful aging at work. Work, Aging and Retirement, 1, 320�333.

Zacher, H., & Kooij, D. T. A. M. (2017). Aging and proactivity. In S. K. Parker, & U. K. Bindl

(Eds.), Proactivity at work: Making things happen in organizations (pp. 258�294). New

York: Routledge, Ch. 10.

Zacher, H., & Rudolph, C.W. (2017). Successful aging at work and beyond: A review and criti-

cal perspective. In Age Diversity in the workplace. Published online 03 Aug 2017; 35�64.

Zacher, H., & Yang, J. (2016). Organizational climate for successful aging. Frontiers in






























work across the lifespan - university of la verne · 2019. 3. 5. · chapter 9 lifespan...

Documents