Content uploaded by Cort W. Rudolph
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cort W. Rudolph on Jan 18, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
LOOKING FORWARD
1
Chapter 26
Looking Forward: A New Agenda for Studying Work Across the Lifespan
Cort W. Rudolph
Saint Louis University
Hannes Zacher
Leipzig University
Boris B. Baltes
Wayne State University
Chapter prepared for the book, “Work Across the Lifespan”
(Editors: Boris B. Baltes, Cort W. Rudolph, & Hannes Zacher)
Author Note
Cort W. Rudolph, Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO
(USA). Hannes Zacher, Institute of Psychology, Leipzig University, Germany. Boris B. Baltes,
Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI (USA).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cort W. Rudolph, Saint
Louis University, Morrissey Hall 2827 St. Louis, MO, 63103, cort.rudolph@health.slu.edu,
+1(314) 977-7299.
LOOKING FORWARD
2
Abstract
This concluding chapter of the book, Work Across the Lifespan, aims to broadly summarize the
state of our knowledge concerning work, aging, and retirement from a lifespan developmental
perspective. We frame this summary as a new research agenda to move research on work across
the lifespan forward. Grounded in the core tenets of the lifespan perspective, and considering the
multitude of opportunities for further research outlined by the preceding chapters, we offer
suggestions to enhance future research. To support this new research agenda, we additionally
discuss “how” to study age and aging in work contexts, in terms of “best practices” for the
design and implementation of research.
Keywords: aging, lifespan, older workers, retirement, research practices
LOOKING FORWARD
3
Looking Forward: A New Agenda for Studying Work Across the Lifespan
Our overarching goal in organizing this book was to take stock of the mounting body of
research that adopts a lifespan developmental perspective and related theories to study work,
careers, and organizations, and to provide an integrative base for future research and practice in
this area. Considering this ambitious goal, we are more than pleased that we can offer this
comprehensive resource, which coalesces theories and empirical findings on age, work, careers,
and organizations based on the lifespan developmental perspective. This book brings together the
collective knowledge and ideas of researchers specializing in this area, and we hope that this
work serves as a resource for students, researchers, and practitioners interested in work, careers,
and organizations, across fields and domains of inquiry.
In this concluding chapter, we aim to broadly summarize the state of our knowledge
concerning work, aging, and retirement from a lifespan developmental perspective. We frame
this summary in terms of our vision for a research agenda to move research on work across the
lifespan forward. Grounded in the core tenets of the lifespan perspective, and considering the
multitude of opportunities for further research outlined by the preceding chapters, we offer this
ambitious plan to enhance research in this area. In addition to this agenda, we discuss “how” to
study age and aging in work contexts in terms of “best practices” for the design and
implementation of empirical research concerning work, aging, and retirement. We conclude with
some more general insights about the study of work, aging, and retirement.
As suggested throughout this volume, the lifespan perspective is a meta-theoretical
account of the ontogenetic process. We can broadly understand the core ideas and foundations of
this perspective by considering the seven tenets or “axioms” of lifespan development outlined by
Baltes (1987). Indeed, as described by Baltes (1987), “For many researchers, the life-span
LOOKING FORWARD
4
orientation entails several prototypical beliefs that, in their weighting and coordination, form a
family of perspectives that together specify a coherent meta-theoretical view on the nature of
development. The significance of these beliefs lies not in the individual items but in the pattern”
(p. 612). As a reminder to our readers, these seven axioms of the lifespan perspective suggest
that development: i) is a lifelong process, ii) is multidirectional, iii) implies gains and losses, iv)
is modifiable, v) is historically embedded, vi) is contextualized, and vii) is multidisciplinary (see
also Chapter 1). Next, we discuss how the research reviewed in the preceding chapters has thus
far integrated these seven axioms, and how future research should adopt them to further
investigate work, aging, and retirement.
Development is a Lifelong Process
The lifespan perspective recognizes that development is a continuous, lifelong process.
Accordingly, no particular age period or life stage is more or less important, and both continuous
(i.e., cumulative) and discontinuous (i.e., innovative) activities constitute the continuum of
lifelong development (Baltes, 1987). The idea of development as a lifelong process is well
embodied in all of the chapters in this book. For instance, clear links to lifelong development
come from the discussion of careers and the long-term process of career development offered by
Nagy, Froidevaux, and Hirschi (Chapter 10).
Studying aging and development across time is a particular challenge for researchers. The
adage, “more longitudinal research is needed,” is an often invoked, and nearly ubiquitous cliché
in studies concerning age and work (see Ng & Feldman, 2008). Adding to this, research often
focuses on age as a substantive individual difference variable, rather than studying aging as a
process, over time. To further develop research in this area, it is important to clearly distinguish
between the effects of “age” and the process of “aging.” Indeed, it is still rare for studies to focus
LOOKING FORWARD
5
on the process of aging; rather studies typically focus on age either as a boundary condition (i.e.,
as a moderator) or as an antecedent (i.e., as an exogenous variable). This is not to say that studies
of age as a boundary condition or as an exogenous variable are not informative. However,
researchers must be clear about the limitations of studying age as a substantive variable, and
recognize how research designs can be improved to account for such limitations. Zacher (2015)
outlines suggestions for studying age and age-related processes in research. Namely, in outlining
an agenda for the study of successful aging at work, Zacher (2015) outlines that age as a variable
itself is an empty and non-causal indicator that serves as a proxy for over-time developmental
change. He suggests that researchers could either specify age-related mediators (i.e., those
explanatory mechanisms that account for associations between employee age and work
outcomes), age-related moderators (i.e., person and/or contextual factors that interact with age in
predicting work outcomes), or combinations thereof (i.e., person and/or contextual factors that
interact with age in predicting work outcomes via age-related mediators).
Regarding the study of aging as a process, future research should endeavor to consider
longer-term effects of developmentally-relevant constructs on work process and/or outcome
variables, over time. A two-pronged strategy seems relevant here: First, researchers should
develop theoretically-informed models of age-related changes over time. Second, recognizing the
feasibility constraints of conducting large-scale longitudinal research, these models could be
tested in existing longitudinal datasets that are available to researchers in the public domain.
Regarding the first strategy, recent work by Wang et al. (2017) highlights the importance of
specifying well-grounded theories of change over time to the development of longitudinal
research questions. Similar sentiments are found in earlier work by Ployhart and Vandenberg
(2010), wherein it is noted that a well-defined theory of change should, a) explain the form and
LOOKING FORWARD
6
duration of change, b) outline the assumed predictors of change, and c) outline the level at which
change should occur (e.g., inter- vs. intraindividual).
Regarding the second strategy, a recent issue of Work, Aging and Retirement highlights a
set of papers based on the publicly available Health and Retirement Study (Fisher & Ryan,
2018). This collection of papers should serve as a prototype for future research in this area.
Indeed, there exists a rich set of public domain longitudinal data resources available for the study
of aging and work in the United States (e.g., The Health and Retirement Study; Midlife in the
United States; Panel Study of Income Dynamics; National Social Life, Health and Aging Project;
National Health and Aging Trends Study) and Beyond (e.g., German Socioeconomic Panel
Study; The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing;!Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey;
Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe). There is a great deal to be learned about the
process of aging at work via these resources, and this book should serve as a call to take
advantage of this data to support future research efforts.
Development is Multidirectional
The lifespan axiom of multidirectionality implies the likelihood for developmental
pluralism (i.e., predicted variability and/or heterogeneity) in trajectories of age-related change
across functional domains over time. Of note, such pluralism is likely even within the same
sphere of functioning (Baltes, 1987). As an example, one may demonstrate gains over time in
one functional domain (e.g., crystalized cognitive abilities; emotion regulation), while
simultaneously showing losses over time in others (e.g., fluid cognitive abilities; physical
strength). For instance, this axiom is well represented in the chapters presented by Fisher,
Chacon, and Chaffee (Chapter 2) concerning cognitive development and by Jiang and Fung
(Chapter 6) concerning emotional development from a lifespan development perspective.
LOOKING FORWARD
7
Future studies should consider hypotheses regarding predicted variability and
heterogeneity in trajectories of age-related changes. This idea is central to the successful aging at
work framework outlined by Zacher (2015), who suggests:
“Successful aging at work involves a comparison of employees’ intraindividual age-
related trajectories of a work outcome over time and across the working life span with
other employees’ age-related trajectories of the same outcome. Employees whose
trajectories deviate positively from the average trajectory are aging successfully at work,
whereas employees whose trajectories deviate negatively are aging unsuccessfully at
work.”
Given predictions about pluralism across functional domains, future studies should endeavor to
test the propositions of successful aging at work in terms of intraindividual age-related
trajectories, but also consider testing competing hypotheses (Platt, 1964) that specify opposing,
yet reasonable boundary conditions for successful versus unsuccessful aging at work. To this
end, given that the notion of plurality implies that multiple pathways to successful aging are
possible, person-centered methods (e.g., latent class models for cross-sectional data; growth-
mixture models for longitudinal data) may prove particularly useful for identifying subgroups of
successful versus unsuccessful agers. A recent example of such a person-centered strategy comes
from Thrasher, Zabel, Bramble, and Baltes (2018), who used latent class analysis to differentiate
profiles of healthy versus unhealthy older workers; these profiles were found to differ on key
motivational variables (e.g., promotion, development, and security motives). An earlier work by
Wang (2007) used growth mixture modeling to identify subgroup latent growth patterns
associated with the development of retirees' psychological well-being over time using data from
the Health and Retirement Study. Given the rich set of resources available to support archival
longitudinal research, future studies should consider such person-centered approaches to
investigating pluralism in developmental trajectories.
Development Implies Gains and Losses
LOOKING FORWARD
8
Successful development, according to the lifespan perspective, is defined as the ability to
maintain a positive ratio of age-related gains to losses across the lifespan (Baltes & Baltes,
1990). Successful development, therefore, occurs to the extent that one can balance available and
developmentally relevant resources (e.g., knowledge and skills; physical and cognitive abilities;
social connections, see Baltes, 1987) against those lost in the aging process. Olson and Shultz
(Chapter 9) argue that contemporary perspectives on successful aging at work well embody the
notion that development implies both gains and losses. Likewise, as described by Moghimi,
Scheibe, and Freund (Chapter 4), the selection, optimization, and compensation model
encompasses the idea that successful aging is a process associated with balancing increases in
losses against gains across time. Similarly, Shane and Heckhausen (Chapter 5) discuss how the
motivational theory of lifespan development frames gains and losses across the lifespan, and in
particular how individuals maintain a sense of control when striving towards goals.
Rudolph (2016) noted that, although the motivational theory of lifespan development is a
comprehensive model of self-regulated goal striving, research on work and aging has often
overlooked this important theoretical perspective, instead favoring either other lifespan theories
or theories of self-regulated goal striving borrowed from the general motivation literature (e.g.,
Carver & Scheier, 1998). Future research concerning age and motivational processes,
particularly goal striving, should consider theorizing based on the motivational theory of lifespan
development, and operationalize optimization in primary and secondary control striving, using
the instruments developed by Heckhausen, Schulz, and Wrosch (1998).
Similarly, action regulation theory presents a comprehensive framework for
understanding a variety of work processes, and Hacker, Sachse, and Seubert (Chapter 8) offer a
lifespan perspective on this grand theory that recognizes how age-related changes (e.g., in
LOOKING FORWARD
9
cognitive functioning) impact working across the lifespan. An implication of this work is that
researchers should examine how age and age-related changes influence the action regulation
process at work, instead of merely correlating age with work outcomes (see also Zacher, Hacker,
& Frese, 2016). For instance, how do age related changes influence the translation of employees’
goals into plans and concrete behavior? Under which conditions are employees from different
age groups more likely to carefully monitor and to seek informative feedback on their behavior?
Another implication of the integration of action regulation theory with the lifespan perspective
offered by Hacker and colleagues is to examine how complete, innovative, and interactive tasks
shape the aging process and developmental outcomes, such as employees’ cognitive and
personality development as well as physical and mental health.
Future work-related research regarding the balance of gains and losses across the lifespan
could adopt not only a dynamic, but also a multilevel approach. Such an approach should not
only consider employees’ intraindividual development over time, but also interindividual
differences, as well as interpersonal, work, and organizational characteristics. For instance,
employees’ goal orientations do not only change over time, employees also differ in the extent to
which they tend to develop and select promotion (i.e., growth-oriented) and prevention (i.e., loss-
avoidance) goals (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Ebner, Baltes, & Freund, 2006). Certain work
characteristics and organizational contexts are likely to induce goal orientations that may not
necessarily be consistent with employees’ age-related preferences (Neal, Ballard, & Vancouver,
2017). Furthermore, while most research conducted in the work context has focused on gains and
losses (e.g., promotion and prevention orientation), the notion of maintenance (including
resilience and recovery; Baltes et al., 2006) has been to some extent neglected, particularly
among older workers (cf. Sonnentag, Venz, & Casper, 2017). Research based on the
LOOKING FORWARD
10
motivational theory of lifespan development, the model of selection, optimization, and
compensation, as well as action regulation theory could investigate what employees actually do
to maintain levels of well-being and effective functioning over time. For instance, it might be
interesting to study whether employees have to show more proactive behaviors, including
planning, monitoring, and feedback seeking, to buffer themselves against age-related losses and
maintain well-being and functioning.
Development is Modifiable
Developmental modifiability entails the potential for within-person and over-time
dynamics (i.e., intraindividual plasticity). Modifiability implies that multiple developmental
courses are possible and likely; however, one of the core tasks in development is to seek out and
realize opportunities for plasticity (Baltes, 1987). For instance, Nye and Roberts’ (Chapter 3)
chapter on the neosocioanalytic model embodies the axiom of modifiability, suggesting that
different environmental contexts and socialization experiences can shape personality
development across the lifespan. Beier et al. (Chapter 7) similarly discuss how contextual
factors, including interventions, may modify age-related trajectories in abilities, motivation, and
workplace behavior through the working lifespan.
Future research regarding developmental modifiability should consider how work
characteristics and environments as well as employee actions can impact changes in work-related
abilities, personality characteristics, and motivation over time. In this regard, research could
explore the range of plasticity via interventions in the workplace, and to study both favorable and
unfavorable changes in employees’ developmental pathways. Furthermore, it would be
interesting to know how within-person changes in these pathways influence important work
outcomes, such as job attitudes, occupational well-being, and performance, and what employees
LOOKING FORWARD
11
and organizations can do to buffer potentially negative developments.
Development is Historically Embedded
Beyond the influence of the aging process, the lifespan perspective recognizes that
development can vary substantially across historical contexts (Baltes, 1987). So-called period
effects (Glenn, 1976; 2005) suggest that a range of sociocultural conditions can influence the
experiences of any given individual and shape the way in which their development unfolds.
Notably absent from the chapters in this book is a discussion of the role of so-called
“generational differences” is workplace attitudes, behaviors, and other processes. The study of
generations, long the purview of sociologists, has recently fallen out of favor in the study of
working (e.g., Rudolph & Zacher, 2017). Indeed, the lifespan perspective eschews the notions of
generations (i.e., broad groupings of people born within a certain range of years) and
generational differences and instead only acknowledges possible cohort (i.e., birth year) effects.
Nevertheless, as noted by Baltes and Nesselroade (1984), “... the cohort concept legitimately has
a different predominant status in sociology than it has in psychology.” Moreover, Baltes (1987)
acknowledged that “... classical psychological theory has little to offer when it comes to
interpreting the substantive meaning and origin of cohort effects .... the fields of cultural
anthropology, historical sociology, and historical medicine may prove to be more relevant” (p.
620).
Consistent with our previous calls (Rudolph & Zacher, 2017; Rudolph, Rauvola, &
Zacher, 2018), we would like to reinforce the idea that generations and generational difference
should not be invoked as reasonable explanatory mechanisms for age-related differences and
changes at work. Our previous work (in particular, Rudolph & Zacher, 2017) has outlined an
agenda for a more differentiated lifespan developmental perspective on studying such issues in
LOOKING FORWARD
12
the workplace. Future research should adopt this framework to gain a more nuanced picture of
how age is perceived, constructed, and integrated into various work processes.
Development is Contextualized
Developmental contextualism refers to the idea that individual development results from
dialectics (i.e., interactions) among three distinct influences: normative age-graded, history-
graded, and non-normative (Baltes, 1987). Normative age-graded influences are encountered by
most people, and manifest as interindividual differences via the typical course of biological
maturation and development (e.g., declines in physical functioning and fluid cognitive abilities;
prototypical socialization events, such as education, family, and retirement). History-graded
influences are linked to the specific time and place in which individual development occurs
(Baltes, 1987), and serve as features of one’s biography that could impact interindividual
differences in developmental outcomes. Finally, non-normative influences refer to idiosyncratic
developmental influences that are specific to each particular individual. Examples of non-
normative influences could be the unexpected death of a spouse or partner, the sudden onset of a
serious illness, or unplanned job loss.
Considering the typology of normative age-graded, history-graded, and non-normative
influences, most research on aging and work focuses on normative age-graded influences, or
average age-related differences or changes. Likewise, there has been a great deal of attention
paid to idiosyncratic influences on work outcomes for older workers, with some attention paid to
the role of non-normative developmental influences from a distinctly lifespan perspective in this
stream of research (e.g., age and job loss; Wanberg, Kanfer, Hamann, & Zhang, 2016). However,
relatively little research concerning work and aging has focused on the role of history-graded
influences on work outcomes. One notable exception to this is work by Shoss and Penney
LOOKING FORWARD
13
(2012), who find that state-level unemployment rates are positively associated with incidence
rates of absence due to symptoms of illness and violent acts in the workplace. Likewise, the work
of Bianchi (2013; 2014) provides some evidence for the role that contemporaneous economic
conditions can play in transitions from school to work, and for the expression of trait-like
individual differences in narcissism.
Future research would be well served to further consider how such history graded
influences, in conjunction with age, affect work outcomes. In our lifespan-grounded critique of
generations, we offer several workable suggestions for building history graded influences into
research designs that should help to inform the design of such research efforts (Rudolph &
Zacher, 2017). Moreover, the study of non-normative influences could be extended beyond
research on job loss to include developmental effects of other less common work events, such as
work-related injuries and traumas (e.g., Haynie & Shepherd, 2011) or radical career changes. For
instance, it would be interesting to know the short- and longer-term implications of people’s
radical upward or downward occupational changes on work and developmental outcomes, and
how these effects differ across age groups.
Development is Multidisciplinary
The final axiom of the lifespan perspective suggests that any single discipline (e.g.,
psychology, sociology biology, gerontology) can only provide a partial, and thus incomplete
representation of human development (Baltes, 1987). As such, development must be studied
through the lenses of multiple disciplines, with a recognition that myriad factors (e.g., biological,
sociocultural) account for development. The chapters in “Part Three” of this book (Chapters 11
through 25) each uniquely embody the multidisciplinary nature of research concerning
development as applied to the study of working.
LOOKING FORWARD
14
Indeed, in considering Chapters 11 through 25, it is clear that research concerning work
across the lifespan has inherently adopted a multidisciplinary lens, focusing on a diverse array of
topics, and adopting multiple supporting theoretical traditions and perspectives. Within the
domain of traditionally “industrial” or “work” psychology topics, lifespan perspectives have
been applied to the study of job design (Cadiz, Rineer, & Truxillo, Chapter 11), job performance,
performance management, and creative performance (Cleveland, Huebner, Anderson, & Agbeke,
Chapter 12), learning and training (Sterns & Harrington, Chapter 13), and personnel selection
and recruitment (Doverspike, Flores, & VanderLees, Chapter 14). Considering topics on the
traditionally “organizational” domain, lifespan perspectives have been applied to the study of
occupational health (Schmitt & Unger, Chapter 15), work and non-work roles (Clark, Sanders,
Haynes, Vande Griek, Chapter 16), diversity, including stereotypes, prejudice, and
discrimination (McCarthy, Heraty, & Bamberg, Chapter 17), teams and intra-/intergroup
relations (Gärtner, Nohe, & Hertel, Chapter 18), psychological contracts (Bal & Vantilborgh,
Chapter 19), work motivation (Kooij & Kanger, Chapter 20), job attitudes, motives, values
(Thrasher & Bramble, Chapter 21), leadership (Rosing & Jungmann, Chapter 22), emotion,
stress, and conflict management (Zapf & Johnson, & Beitler, Chapter 23), organizational culture
and climate (Kunze & Toader, Chapter 24), and finally, retirement and bridge employment (Zhan
& Wang, & Daniel, Chapter 25).
If these fifteen chapters are any indication of the trajectory for research in this area, then
calling for enhanced lines of multidisciplinary inquiry regarding aging at work across the
lifespan would seem unnecessary. Instead, we encourage deeper considerations of how various
lifespan theories operate, including enhanced and critical perspectives on those processes and
mechanisms derived from lifespan perspectives, broadly defined. We outline some potential
LOOKING FORWARD
15
areas for such “deeper considerations,” next.
Meta-Observations about the State of the Literature
We now consider some broader “meta-” observations from this literature. Although the
thoughts raised above provide some specific guidance for future research efforts grounded in the
lifespan perspective, the following observations should more generally ground future thinking
about work, aging, and retirement based in this theoretical tradition.
Integrate across lifespan theories. One general observation across lifespan development
research, broadly defined, and in terms of application of the lifespan perspective to work, aging,
and retirement, is the lack of integration among lifespan theories. That is to say, theories are
either invoked in isolation or in parallel to one another (e.g., citing common predictions).
However, very few attempts have been made to either conceptually or empirically integrate
across lifespan theories. Three notable exceptions to this can be found in the literature.
Haase, Heckhausen, and Wrosch (2013) present an empirical integration of three lifespan
developmental theories: assimilative and accommodative coping (Brandtstädter & Renner,
1990), the model of selection, optimization, and compensation (see Chapter 4), and the
motivational theory of lifespan development (see Chapter 5). Developmental regulation
mechanisms posited to operate within each of these three theories were classified in term of their
operation for goal engagement, goal disengagement, and meta-regulation processes. The results
of an empirical test suggest that metaregulation is indirectly associated with wellbeing outcomes
through goal engagement and disengagement. Two additional attempts at conceptual integrations
can also be found within this literature. First, Salmela-Aro offers the “life-span model of
motivation” comprised by the “4 Cs”: channeling, choice, co-agency, and compensation. This
model is grounded in earlier work from lifespan development, and integrates life course
LOOKING FORWARD
16
sociology perspectives as well. Second, Rudolph (2016) notes that the empirical framework
offered by Haase et al. (2013) does not integrate the role of time perspective, as would be
indicated by socioemotional selectivity theory (see Chapter 6). Thus, in a conceptual integration
of these two models, Rudolph (2016) suggests that future time perspective serves an important
role in matching of goals to opportunities within the larger action-phase sequence implied by the
motivational theory of lifespan development. More specifically, future time perspective gives
temporal context to the types of goal engagement and disengagement strategies that are likely to
be employed when faced with limited opportunities to enact one’s goals. While these integrations
are compelling, the lack of comprehensive empirical integrations across these theories, and the
relative complexities in building conceptual integrations that are both of practical utility and
testable presents an opportunity for future research.
Resolve conflicts among and across lifespan theories. As noted by Rudolph (2016),
there are several conflicts both among and across various lifespan theories that have not been
completely resolved. First, and in general, lifespan theories tend to favor the promotion of
enhanced forms of primary control (e.g., proactive goal engagement). Indeed, secondary control
(e.g., goal disengagement) may be a reasonable and equally adaptive alternative strategy,
particularly when individuals or their contexts are resource limited. This notion of “promoting
control” also largely ignores that, regardless of form (primary or secondary), enacting control is
an effortful endeavor, and one that may have unintended maladaptive consequences (e.g.,
Skinner, 1995; Zacher, Schmitt, Jimmieson, and Rudolph, 2018).
Second, also regarding maintaining control, the notion that agency is bounded by one’s
context is often ignored, as is the idea that context is both an influence on and influenced by
one’s development (see Lerner & Busch-Rossnagel, 1981). Related to these two points, Rudolph
LOOKING FORWARD
17
(2016) notes that successful development is marked by both equifinality and multifinality: there
are multiple possible pathways to developmental success, each of which might be very different
when construed within-person, but equated between-person.
Finally, multiple lifespan theories make predictions about the “amount” one engages in
specific developmental regulation strategies (e.g., selection, optimization, and compensation),
but not the quality of such strategies. Thus, such perspectives tend to take a, “if a little is good,
more is better” perspective (Rudolph, 2016 p. 147). Such “more” arguments tend to ignore the
resource-intensive nature of engaging such strategies, while also assuming that people will
choose the “right” strategy (i.e., with respect to adaptive utility), and that such strategies operate
independently for the agent enacting them (cf. Wynne, 2016). Indeed, as suggested by
Heckhausen and Schulz (1993), selection and compensation may over time become
dysfunctional when they impair the long-term capacity to engage primary rather than secondary
control strategies. These conflicts are difficult to address; however, it is necessary for future
research to consider how they can be rectified, particularly if such efforts are geared toward
developing and testing integrative lifespan perspectives.
Integrate across non-lifespan theories. Lifespan perspectives share many common
assumptions with other well-established theories that exist within other domains. For example,
many of the core goal selection and striving mechanisms implicated within lifespan theories
share common elements with control process theories of self-regulation (Carver & Scheier,
1998). Moreover, elements of work adjustment (e.g., continuously striving for person-
environment fit; see Dawis, 2005) can be extracted from lifespan perspectives. The conceptual
similarities between sociological life course perspectives and lifespan theories have likewise
been noted (e.g., Rudolph, 2016). Given such overlaps, we would argue that more conceptual
LOOKING FORWARD
18
and empirical integrations of these theories across domains is necessary.
One recent effort to integrate the lifespan perspective with action regulation theory
(Zacher, et al., 2016), the action regulation across the lifespan model (ARAL), should be held up
as an example of such a conceptual integration. As described by Hacker, Sachse, and Seubert
(Chapter 8), action regulation theory has strong grounding in research on cognitive and
behavioral processes. While some research in the tradition of the lifespan perspective has been
based on action theory (e.g., Brandtstädter, 1998; Freund & Baltes, 2000), action regulation
theory focuses on how actions unfold in applied contexts such as work. The ARAL model
describes, one the one hand, how age and age-related changes in psychological characteristics
and functioning impact the action regulation process. The action regulation process consists of
the phases of goal development and selection, orientation, planning, monitoring of execution,
and feedback processing (see also Zacher & Frese, 2018). On the other hand, the ARAL model
explores how the regulation of actions itself might impact the aging process, for instance by
boosting or buffering trajectories in certain psychological characteristics or in work outcomes.
While some of the 35 propositions outlined by the ARAL model have received empirical support
for some time, others still remain to be tested.
Future efforts to integrate lifespan thinking into existing models must be grounded in
broader and “grander” theoretical integrations, which recognize similarities in predictions, but
also test points of differentiation. For example, one possibility would be to adopt a work
adjustment perspective on successful aging at work. The person-environment fit model of
successful aging at work (Kooij, 2015) adopts a “sustainability” perspective, arguing that to
maintain continuous person–job fit between dynamic person and work characteristics is required
for employees to age successfully at work (i.e., to maintain their health, motivation, and work
LOOKING FORWARD
19
ability). Interestingly, very similar predictions regarding successful work adjustment can be
derived from Dawis and Lofquist’s (1984) theory of work adjustment, however studies of such
dynamic person-environment fit perspectives have thus-far not considered this cross-domain
theoretical integration.
Integrate between and across levels of analysis. Most research concerning age and
work is cross-sectional (i.e., single time point) and single source (e.g., self-reported work
behaviors). As such, it is still relatively rare to see the modeling of intra-individual processes, or
those that may unfold at both the within- and between-person levels of analysis. Regarding the
reliance on single-source data, we know relatively little about inter-individual dynamics,
exchanges, or how collective processes associated with developmental regulation may emerge
within dyads or other collectives (e.g., work groups; see Chapter 18 by Gaertner et al. and
Chapter 24 by Kunze and Toader). One notable exception to this, is a study by Von Bonsdorff et
al. (2016), which investigated relationships between age, selection, optimization, and
compensation strategies, high-involvement work practices, and work ability in a sample of nearly
900 employees from 70 Finnish companies. Results of this study suggest that company average
age was negatively associated with company-level work ability, which in turn was positively
related to company performance (i.e., rated by company managers). Moreover, high-involvement
work practices were positively related to company work ability, and the average use of selection,
optimization and compensation strategies by employees served to mitigate the negative
relationships between company average age on company-level work ability.
More research is needed that focuses on the manifestations of developmental regulation
for both between- and within-unit relationships. To accomplish this, a great deal of critical
thought must be put towards explicating the way in which various lifespan developmental
LOOKING FORWARD
20
regulation mechanisms are conceptualized at various levels of analysis. Indeed, lifespan theories
do not provide firm guidance about the composition models (Chan, 1998) that should be
considered when conceptualizing developmental regulation strategies at any level higher than the
between-person level of analysis. Of note, Baltes (1997) and Baltes et al. (2001) do hint at the
possibilities of the collective influence of selection, optimization and compensation strategies,
but it is unclear how to conceptualize such individual level behaviors in the aggregate. Moreover,
little if no research has focused on emergent processes associated with lifespan developmental
constructs, and particularly not so in a longitudinal (i.e., developmental) sense (see Lang, Bliese,
& De Voogt, 2018). For example, Von Bonsdorff et al. (2016) investigated employee average
use of selection, optimization and compensation strategies, however the case could be made that
other aggregate compositions may also be relevant (e.g., dispersion models; those where the
meaning of higher level construct is in the dispersion or variance among lower level units; see
Chan, 1998).
Integrate contexts and ecologies. The study of context has a long and important history
in the general lifespan developmental literature. For example, Bronfenbrenner (1979) offered
ecological systems theory to explain how individuals’ experiences and behaviors are shaped by
different contexts. Bronfenbrenner (1979) argued that individual development occurs within the
boundaries of five different, yet interrelated environmental systems (i.e., chronosystem,
microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem), each of which exerts an important
influence on the course of development. In the 1980s, Ford and Lerner (1992) introduced the
notion of developmental contextualism in their explanation of developmental systems theory.
Developmental systems theory is an integrative theoretical perspective, which posits that
development is influence by continuous person–environment interactions, such that changes in
LOOKING FORWARD
21
both the environment’s characteristics and individuals’ physiological and psychological
characteristics are codetermined.
Future research concerning work and aging should attempt to better integrate elements of
context, borrowing from these rich theoretical traditions. We see two potential venues for
research to accomplish this. First, considerations of national context and culture, including
investigations of cross-cultural differences/similarities should be undertaken (see Rudolph,
Marcus, & Zacher, 2018, for a review and outline of specific directions for future research).
Moreover, an enhanced focus on the dynamic interplay between work and non-work roles,
including family roles (see Chapter 16) must be undertaken. One relevant area for future inquiry
regards family role demands and concerns for dependent care responsibilities, including
eldercare -- an emerging life role that has distinct implications for the aging population, broadly
defined (e.g., Zacher, Rudolph, & Reinicke, 2017).
Considered together, the directions for future research that fall within the axioms of
lifespan development and the “meta-” observations outlined above constitute a new research
agenda that will enhance our knowledge concerning work, aging, and retirement from a lifespan
developmental perspective. Next, we outline some specific suggestions that constitute “best
practices” for conducting such research to ensure the broader validity and generalizability of
such work.
Enacting a “New Agenda” for Research on Working Across the Lifespan
To give some direction to how we envision enacting this new research agenda concerning
work across the lifespan, we point to recent work that aims to codify a cannon of methodological
and statistical “best practices” for studying age in the workplace (Bohlmann, Rudolph, & Zacher,
2018). This work offers eight such recommendations, each of which should serve to guide future
LOOKING FORWARD
22
research in this area and nicely compliment the specific suggestions for future research outlined
here. First, because chronological age is not a causal variable, we must investigate how age-
related individual and contextual characteristics influence work outcomes. Thus, as we have
suggested here, it is important to not only test simple age and age moderated effects, but also
examine age-related mediators that link such relationships to work outcomes (Zacher, 2015).
Second, and related to this first point, age must be operationalized as a continuous variable;
creating age groups (including artificially constructed “generational” groupings comprised of age
brackets) leads to a loss of statistical power, and to theoretical and conceptual confusion about
the meaning and nature of age (Rudolph, 2015).
Third, with advancing age, people may become more different from one other due to the
“fanning out” of individual developmental trajectories over time (O'Rand, 1996). Accordingly,
both individual and contextual characteristics should be modeled to as a means of examining and
explain increased variation in work outcomes among older compared to younger workers.
Fourth, regarding sampling and related to the second point, it is important to consider samples
with similar numbers of workers from different age groups and to clearly report the proportion of
workers in each group. Indeed, a great deal of work omits adults in their mid-careers, leading to
possibly erroneous conclusions as a function of sample selection bias (Berk, 1983)
Fifth, to more appropriately model hypotheses regarding within-person variability,
longitudinal, daily diary, and experimental research designs allow investigations regarding how
age and age-related characteristics are related to changes in work outcomes over time and across
contexts (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013); such designs should be favored over cross-sectional
research methods. Sixth, because many aging effects only start to manifest at older ages, it is
important to hypothesize and routinely address the possibility of nonlinear relationships that
LOOKING FORWARD
23
might better explain the complex process of aging (e.g., Sturman, 2003). This is of particular
import to longitudinal research that models within-person changes over time. Seventh, also
related to temporal processes, other time-related constructs (e.g., job tenure) may constitute
alternative explanations for relationships found between age and work outcomes. Thus, the
sensitivity of models to the influence of other temporal process constructs should be routinely
tested, and controlled for if necessary (Zacher & Rudolph, 2018).
Finally, the study of discrepancy phenomena is common in the study of aging and work
(e.g., age differences; person-environment fit; relative subjective age). However, simple
difference score approaches to such phenomena have several methodological problems (e.g.,
concerns regarding the reliability of difference scores; Edwards, 1995; 2001). A more
appropriate methodology uses polynomial regression analysis with response surface
methodology to jointly conceptualize discrepancies, without the need to compute difference
scores. These eight suggestions for “best practices” offered by Bohlmann et al, (2017) should
help to frame the design and implementation of new research concerning work from a lifespan
development perspective. While not meant to be wholly prescriptive (i.e., in that not all will
apply to every such study), general adherence to these suggestions should help to ensure the
quality of research findings.
Conclusions
In concluding this final chapter of our book, we would like to offer sincere thanks to the
expert contributors who wrote the chapters that comprise this volume. Without these
contributions, this work would not have been possible. We would also like to note that these
authors represent a global perspective on working and lifespan development, with researchers
from eight different countries (Austria, Canada, China, Germany, Ireland, The Netherlands,
LOOKING FORWARD
24
Switzerland, The United Kingdom, and The United States) and three continents represented.
Given our calls for increased focus on cross cultural dimensions of work and aging, we hope that
this trend towards global perspective continues. Moreover, embodying the promise of the
lifespan development perspective, we are pleased that this group of experts includes established
academics, as well as emerging scholars and early career researchers.
As a whole, this work supports the proposition that, as a meta-theory, the lifespan
developmental perspective serves as an important point of integration across specific theories,
constructs, and empirical findings, and thus provides a useful guide for future research and
practice. In closing, Baltes (1997) ends his classic American Psychologist article, “On the
Incomplete Architecture of Human Ontogeny” with the suggestion, “…the future is not
something we simply enter; the future is also something we help create.” (p. 378). In this spirit,
we hope that this volume on work across the lifespan as a whole inspires researchers to conduct
theory-driven, rigorously-designed, and practically-relevant research on work across the lifespan.
LOOKING FORWARD
25
References
Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the
dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23, 611–626.
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. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.4.366.
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: Cambridge University Press.
Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. M. (2006). Lifespan theory in developmental
psychology. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1.
Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 569-664). New York: Wiley.
Baltes, P. B., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1984). Paradigm lost and paradigm regained: Critique of
Dannefer’s portrayal of life-span developmental psychology. American Sociological
Review, 49, 841–847.
Berk, R. A. (1983). An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American
Sociological Review, 48(3), 386-398. doi:10.2307/2095230
Bohlmann, C., Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2017). Methodological recommendations to move
research on work and aging forward. Work, Aging and Retirement. doi:
10.1093/workar/wax023 [In Press Accepted Manuscript].
LOOKING FORWARD
26
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary
and experience sampling research. New York: Guilford Press.
Brandtstädter, J. (1998). Action theory in developmental psychology. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1. Theoretical Models of Human
Development, pp. 807-863). New York: Wiley.
Brandtstädter, J., & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment:
Explication and age-related analysis of assimilative and accomodative strategies of
coping. Psychology and Aging, 5(1), 58-67. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.5.1.58
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different
levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83(2), 234-246. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
Dawis, R. V. (2005). The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent
(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 3-
23). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An
individual differences model and its application. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account of goal orientation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1096-1127. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1096
LOOKING FORWARD
27
Ebner, N. C., Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2006). Developmental changes in personal goal
orientation from young to late adulthood: From striving for gains to maintenance and
prevention of losses. Psychology and Aging, 21(4), 664-678. doi:10.1037/0882-
7974.21.4.664
Edwards, J. R. (1995). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of
congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 64(3), 307-324. doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1108
Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4(3), 265-
287. doi:10.1177/109442810143005
Fisher, G. G., & Ryan, L. H. (2017). Overview of the Health and Retirement Study and
Introduction to the Special Issue. Work, Aging and Retirement, 4(1), 1-9. doi:
10.1093/workar/wax032
Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2000). The orchestration of selection, optimization, and
compensation: An action-theoretical conceptualization of a theory of developmental
regulation. In W. J. Perrig & A. Grob (Eds.), Control of Human Behavior, Mental
Processes, and Consciousness (pp. 35-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Glenn, N.D. (1976). Cohort Analysts Futile Quest - Statistical Attempts to Separate Age, Period
and Cohort Effects. American Sociological Review, 41, 900-904.
Glenn, N.D. (2005). Cohort Analysis. London: SAGE.
Haase, C. M., Heckhausen, J., & Wrosch, C. (2013). Developmental regulation across the
LOOKING FORWARD
28
lifespan: Toward a new synthesis. Developmental Psychology, 49, 964–972.
doi:10.1037/a0029231
Haynie, J. M., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Toward a theory of discontinuous career transition:
Investigating career transitions necessitated by traumatic life events. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(3), 501-524. doi:10.1037/a0021450
Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1993). Optimization by selection and compensation: Balancing
primary and secondary control in lifespan development. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 16, 287–303.
Heckhausen J., Schulz R., Wrosch C. (1998). Developmental regulation in adulthood:
optimization in primary and secondary control – a multiscale questionnaire, in Technical
Report (Berlin: Max-Planck Institute for Human Development and Education). doi:
10.1017/CBO9780511527852
Kooij, D. T. (2015). Successful aging at work: The active role of employees. Work, Aging and
Retirement, 1(4), 309-319. doi: 10.1093/workar/wav018
Lang, J. W., Bliese, P. D., & De Voogt, A. (2017). Modeling consensus emergence in groups
using longitudinal multilevel methods. Personnel Psychology. doi:10.1111/peps.12260
[In Press Accepted Manuscript]
Lerner, R. M., & Busch-Rossangel, N. A. (1981). Individuals as producers of their development:
A life-span approach. New York: Academic Press.
Neal, A., Ballard, T., & Vancouver, J. B. (2017). Dynamic self-regulation and multiple-goal
pursuit. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4,
401-423. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113156
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job
LOOKING FORWARD
29
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 392-423. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.93.2.392
O'Rand, A. (1996). The precious and the precocious: Understanding cumulative disadvantage
and cumulative advantage over the life course. The Gerontologist, 36(2), 230-238.
doi:10.1093/geront/36.2.230
Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146(3642), 347-353.
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal Research: e theory, design, and
analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36, 94–120.
doi:10.1177/0149206309352110
Rudolph, C.W. (2015). A note of the folly of cross-sectional operationalizations of generations.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Research and Practice,
8(03), 362-366.
Rudolph, C. W. (2016). Lifespan developmental perspectives on working: A literature review of
motivational theories. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2(2), 130-158.
doi:10.1093/workar/waw012
Rudolph, C.W., Marcus, J., & Zacher, H., (2018). Global issues in work and aging. In K. Shultz
& G. Adams (Eds.) Aging & Work in the 21st Century (2nd Edition).
Routledge/Psychology Press. [In Press Accepted Manuscript]
Rudolph, C. W., Rauvola, R. S., & Zacher, H. (2017). Leadership and generations at work: a
critical review. The Leadership Quarterly. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.09.004
Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2017). Considering generations from a lifespan developmental
perspective. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3(2), 113-129. doi:10.1093/workar/waw019
Salmela-Aro, K. (2009). Personal goals and well-being during critical life transitions: The four
LOOKING FORWARD
30
C’s–Channelling, choice, co-agency and compensation. Advances in Life Course
Research, 14, 63–73. doi:10.1016/j.alcr.2009.03.003
Shoss, M. K., & Penney, L. M. (2012). The economy and absenteeism: A macro-level
study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 881-889. doi: 10.1037/a0026953
Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, & coping. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sonnentag, S., Venz, L., & Casper, A. (2017). Advances in recovery research: What have we
learned? What should be done next? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3),
365-380. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000079
Sturman, M. C. (2003). Searching for the inverted U-shaped relationship between time and
performance: Meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, and
age/performance relationships. Journal of Management, 29(5), 609-640. doi:
10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00028-X
von Bonsdorff, M. E., Zhou, L., Wang, M., Vanhala, S., von Bonsdorff, M. B., & Rantanen, T.
(2016). Employee age and company performance: An integrated model of aging and
human resource management practices. Journal of Management. doi:
10.1177/0149206316662314 [In Press Accepted Manuscript]
Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., Hamann, D. J., & Zhang, Z. (2016). Age and reemployment success
after job loss: An integrative model and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142(4),
400-427. doi: doi: 10.1037/bul0000019
Wang, M. (2007). Profiling retirees in the retirement transition and adjustment process:
Examining the longitudinal change patterns of retirees' psychological well-being. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 455-474. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.455
Wang, M., Beal, D. J., Chan, D., Newman, D. A., Vancouver, J. B., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2017).
LOOKING FORWARD
31
Longitudinal research: A panel discussion on conceptual issues, research design, and
statistical techniques. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3(1), 1–24.
doi:10.1093/workar/waw033
Wynne, K. T. (2016). Exploring crossover effects among working spouses through the lens of
social cognitive theory: SOC and work-family conflict (Doctoral Dissertation, Wayne
State University). Retrieved From: https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu
Zacher, H. (2015). Successful aging at work. Work, Aging and Retirement, 1(1), 4-25.
doi:10.1093/workar/wau006
Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2018). Action regulation theory: Foundations, current knowledge, and
future directions. In D. S. Ones, N. R. Anderson, C. Viswesvaran, & H. K. Sinangil
(Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology (2nd
ed., Vol. 2: Organizational Psychology, pp. 80-102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zacher, H., Hacker, W., & Frese, M. (2016). Action regulation across the adult lifespan (ARAL):
A metatheory of work and aging. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2(3), 286-306. doi:
10.1093/workar/waw015
Zacher, H. & Rudolph, C.W. (2018). Just a mirage: On the incremental predictive validity of
subjective age. Work, Aging and Retirement. doi: 10.1093/workar/wax031 [In Press
Accepted Manuscript]
Zacher, H., Rudolph, C.W., & Reinicke, C. (2017). Caregiving and organizational
support. In L. Calvano & R. Burke & (Eds.), The sandwich generation: Caring for
oneself and others at home and work (pp. 129-151). Northampton, MA. Elgar
Zacher, H., Schmitt, A., Jimmieson, N. L., & Rudolph, C. W. (2018). Dynamic effects of
LOOKING FORWARD
32
personal initiative on engagement and exhaustion: The role of mood, autonomy, and
support. Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi:10.1002/job.2277 [In Press Accepted
Manuscript].
