The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
JMP
30,2
216
Received 26 August 2012
Revised 1 February 2013
23 April 2013
1 November 2013
Accepted 24 January 2014
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 30 No. 2, 2015
pp. 216-231
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/JMP-08-2012-0250
Differential predictors of
post-retirement life and work
satisfaction
Leena Maren Pundt, Anne Marit Wöhrmann and Jürgen Deller
Institute for Strategic HR Management Research and Development,
Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany, and
Kenneth S. Shultz
Department of Psychology, California State University, San Bernardino,
California, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship of personal motivational goals and
the corresponding occupational characteristics of volunteer, work-related activities in retirement with
life and work satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – Fully retired individuals working for a non-profit organization
in their former professional career field on a non-paid basis were surveyed using an online survey
(n ¼ 661) to assess their motivational goals, the occupational characteristics of their projects, and
satisfaction with life and work.
Findings – Results suggested that post-retirement volunteer workers differentiated between
perceived life and work satisfaction. The motives of achievement, appreciation, autonomy, contact,
and generativity significantly directly affected life satisfaction and indirectly affected work
satisfaction. Occupational characteristics assessing achievement, appreciation, autonomy, contact, and
generativity had direct effects on work satisfaction but not on life satisfaction except for occupational
autonomy.
Research limitations/implications – The study was cross-sectional and based on self-report data
of highly educated German retirees working in volunteer professional positions, thus potentially
limiting the generalizability of findings.
Practical implications – Organizations should enable post-retirement volunteer workers to meet
their motivation goals by designing work opportunities to fulfill the motivational goals of achievement,
appreciation, autonomy, contact, and generativity.
Social implications – Post-retirement activities possess the potential to help solve societal problems
by countering the shortage of specialists and managers at the same time that the burden on social
security systems is reduced.
Originality/value – The paper presents evidence that different personal motivational goals and
occupational characteristics are important in post-retirement activities. The findings imply that work
designs created for post-retirement activities should provide a variety of occupational characteristics,
such as occupational achievement and appreciation.
Keywords Motivation (psychology), Job satisfaction, Older workers
Paper type Research paper
Ageing populations create challenges in many countries due to a declining number of
young individuals and an ageing workforce. As individuals age their work ability
(Ilmarinen, 2006) and general work motivation (Stamov-Roßnagel and Hertel, 2010)
become increasingly heterogeneous. This means that many individuals remain in
good mental and physical health at retirement age and can maintain or even increase
their level of job-related performance due to accumulated knowledge and experience
(Ilmarinen, 2006). Thus, older persons could represent a valuable resource for Post-
organizations being confronted with labour shortages and wanting to profit from retirement life
experience. Due to the current and expected labour shortage of highly skilled workers
in many countries, active retirees in unpaid but work-related activities could also
and work
be of great interest to organizations in maintaining their competitive advantage. satisfaction
Therefore, knowledge about the motivation of post-retirement individuals to continue
activities beyond formal retirement is essential. Moreover, it will be important to 217
know which working conditions motivate individuals to mobilize their capabilities for a
post-retirement job. Although research on the motivation of older workers and post-
retirement activities have increased over the past few years (e.g. Deller and Hertel, 2009;
Kooij et al., 2011; Madvig and Shultz, 2008), detailed knowledge about the motivational
structure beyond financial needs, as well as relationships between personal motives and
occupational characteristics, is still lacking (Shultz and Adams, 2007; Wang and Shultz,
2010). A longitudinal investigation in the USA found that individual attributes as well
as job-related psychological variables are important antecedents of engaging in post-
retirement activities (Wang et al., 2008). Wang et al. (2008) proposed different categories
of antecedents of continued activity and found different types of bridge employment
decisions. However, they did not consider the differential predictors of life and
work satisfaction in retirement. The motivators for this continued activity can be sought
in either motivational goals or occupational characteristics of the work. Thus, the guiding
research question for the present study was to investigate the role of motivational
goals and occupational characteristics for life satisfaction and work satisfaction in
retirement. To this end we used a sample of retirees who were engaged in voluntary
project activities.

Life and work satisfaction and post-retirement activities

Life satisfaction has been defined as “evaluations of one’s life according to subjectively
determined standards” (Schimmack et al., 2002, p. 582), and it forms the crucial
component of subjective well-being (Diener et al., 1999). General work satisfaction is
defined as “an overall measure of the degree to which the employee is satisfied and
happy with the job” (Hackman and Oldham, 1975, p. 162). Many studies have shown
that life satisfaction is significantly related to work satisfaction (Rain et al., 1991;
Tait et al., 1989 for a meta-analytic review). In general, both work satisfaction
and life satisfaction increase with age (Diener et al., 1999; Ng and Feldman, 2010;
Rhodes, 1983). McNamara et al. (2013) most recently reported that working retirees had
significantly higher work satisfaction compared to older workers. Other studies have
shown that persons engaging in voluntary and/or paid post-retirement activities
show higher life satisfaction compared to people who do not engage in post-retirement
activities (Aquino et al., 1996; Herzog et al., 1991; Kim and Feldman, 2000). Taylor et al.
(2008) noted that post-retirement satisfaction actually consists of three distinct
dimensions: satisfaction with life in general, satisfaction with the retirement
experience, and social satisfaction. In the present study, we focused on the first
dimension of satisfaction with life in general, while also looking at post-retirement work
satisfaction.

Personal motives for post-retirement activities

Motivation for engaging in post-retirement activities, such as paid bridge employment
or volunteer work is well-researched in North America (Wang and Shultz, 2010) and is
JMP mainly determined by social, personal, financial, and generative reasons (Dendinger
30,2 et al., 2005; Loi and Shultz, 2007; Madvig and Shultz, 2008; Mor-Barak, 1995). Deller
et al. (2009) explored comparable reasons (to those above) for a sample of retirees in
Germany who were engaged in paid or unpaid post-retirement activities. Their results
indicate that there may be several motivational goals that drive retirees to engage
in post-retirement activities. This is in line with socioemotional selectivity theory (SST;
218 Carstensen, 2006) which holds that as with age, time remaining in one’s life is perceived
to decrease, people increasingly focus on emotionally meaningful goals and activities.
This theory served as the theoretical rationale for the present study. SST emphasizes
an increasing importance of appreciation motive, autonomy motive, generativity
motive, and social contact motive in retirement. These motivational goals become more
important at older ages when subjective future time is perceived as limited (Carstensen,
2006). In addition to these motivational goals addressed by SST, the role of the
achievement motive of older workers has also been theorized and investigated.
We clustered previous research evidence into five content-related categories for
motivational goals in the context of volunteer post-retirement work: achievement
motive, appreciation motive, autonomy motive, contact motive, and generativity
motive.
Achievement motive reflects the striving of individuals to accomplish goals and to
do things better. Kanfer and Ackerman (2004) state that the strength of achievement
motives declines as workers age whereas de Lange et al. (2010) recently emphasised
the importance of achievement goals of older workers relative to younger workers.
Findings are inconsistent which may be due to measures containing different
achievement aspects (Kooij et al., 2011).
Appreciation motive describes the wish to be appreciated and accepted by others.
Appreciation and recognition has repeatedly found to be a reason for the work
engagement of older workers and retirees (Deller et al., 2009; Dendinger et al., 2005;
Mor-Barak, 1995).
Autonomy motive means the desire to be free in decision making and behaviour.
Studies investigating age differences in work motives (for a meta-analytical
review see Kooij et al., 2011) found that autonomy is positively related with age.
Further, Deller et al. (2009) found autonomy to be an important reason for post-
retirement work.
Contact motive reflects the desire to have satisfying relationships with others
and was found to be a reason to engage in post-retirement activities in several studies
(Aquino et al., 1996; Deller et al., 2009; Dendinger et al., 2005). This is supported by SST
under which it is assumed that close relationships become more important at older
ages. However, Kooij et al. (2011) found in their meta-analysis that working with people
was negatively related to age.
Generativity motive describes the motivation to pass on knowledge and skills
to others (McAdams and de St Aubin, 1992). Generativity has been identified as an
important driver for post-retirement activities (Calo, 2005; Mor-Barak, 1995).
Earlier research has shown that personal motives, such as achievement, generativity,
and affiliation motives, are related to life satisfaction and/or work satisfaction (e.g. Jacob
and Guarnaccia, 1997; Lawrence and Jordan, 2009; Stamov-Roßnagel and Biemann, 2012).
We therefore expected that in the present study motivational goals would be directly and
positively related to life satisfaction (H1a) and work satisfaction (H1b).
Further, individuals’ motivational goals could impact their choice of voluntary post-
retirement activities and therefore, affect the perceptions of occupational characteristics,
which are described in detail in the next section. We therefore, hypothesized Post-
thatmotivational goals are directly and positively related to their corresponding retirement life
occupational characteristics (H1c) and indirectly related to work satisfaction through
corresponding occupational characteristics (H1d).
and work
satisfaction

Occupational characteristics in post-retirement work 219

Research has shown that perceived environmental characteristics influence older
persons’ well-being (Wang et al., 2011; Warr et al., 2004). According to the five content-
related categories for motivational goals above, five corresponding occupational
characteristics are relevant in the context of volunteer post-retirement work: achievement,
appreciation, autonomy, contact, and generativity.
Occupational achievement describes a work place that allows space for
self-realization and achievement goals. The provision of appreciation and recognition
for the work individuals do is reflected in occupational appreciation. McNamara et al.
(2013) found that working retirees place particular value on supervisor feedback.
Moreover, a conceptual review of more than 20 empirical studies identified continuous
career development as a motivator for older workers to continue to work (Kooij et al.,
2008). Recently, Zaniboni et al. (2010) showed that job characteristics such as the
opportunity for growth and development, as well as decision-making opportunities
discourage senior workers from retiring.
Occupational appreciation means the recognition one receives from the working
environment. Providing appreciation and recognition motivates retirees’ decision to
return to work (Armstrong-Stassen, 2008; Deller et al., 2009).
Occupational autonomy is found in a work place that allows self-determination
and freedom of decision. Pengcharoen and Shultz (2010) identified pre-retirement work
schedule inflexibility as a significant predictor of being completely retired for a sample
of US older individuals. Kooij et al. (2008) report that redesiging the job so that older
workers could serve as mentors motivated the older workers to continue to work.
Occupational contact reflects a work environment in which contact possibilities
are presented. Positive relationships at work motivate older workers to continue
working (Peeters and van Emmerick, 2008) and are an important reason to engage in
post-retirement work (Deller et al., 2009).
Finally, occupational generativity describes the enabling of exchange between
young and old. Peeters and van Emmerick (2008) summarize knowledge transfer
programmes motivating older workers to continue working.
The relevance of these five occupational characteristics for post-retirement activities
has been supported by earlier studies. Previous research has demonstrated that
working retirees and older workers value opportunities for growth and development
(Kooij et al., 2008; Zaniboni et al., 2010), appreciation and recognition (Armstrong-
Stassen, 2008; Deller et al., 2009), decision-making opportunities (Zaniboni et al.,
2010), positive relationships at work (Deller et al., 2009; Peeters and van Emmerick,
2008), and opportunities to mentor and pass along their knowledge (Kooij et al., 2008;
Peeters and van Emmerick, 2008). These opportunities at work therefore
motivate older workers to continue working (Deller et al., 2009; Peeters and van
Emmerick, 2008).
Research on work design has repeatedly found significant relationships of occupational
characteristics, such as autonomy and achievement, with work satisfaction (e.g. Boumans
et al., 2011; Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Humphrey et al., 2007; Loher et al., 1985;
JMP Thomas et al., 2004; van den Berg and Feij, 2003). The relationship of occupational
30,2 characteristics and life satisfaction has been studied to a lesser extent. However,
studies show that occupational characteristics, such as autonomy and appreciation,
play a critical role in life satisfaction (e.g. Anaby et al., 2010; Thompson and
Prottas, 2006).
Based on the considerations above, we hypothesizeoccupational characteristics to be
220 directly and positively related to life satisfaction (H2a) and work satisfaction (H2b).
Figure 1 illustrates the hypothesized relationships.

Method
Sample
The sample consisted of skilled German persons fully retired from their job who were
receiving full pension benefits. They engaged on a voluntary and unpaid basis in a
non-profit organization named senior experts service (SES) which offers retirees the
opportunity to work on unpaid projects, both abroad and within Germany in their
former professional career field (www.ses-bonn.de/en).
An e-mail which contained a hyperlink that directed them to a secure online
survey was sent out to 1,700 senior experts in Spring 2010. Totally, 661 senior experts
completed the 52-item questionnaire (response rate ¼ 36 per cent). Due to missing
values, the data of 644 participants were included in the analyses of this study.
The average age of respondents was 69 years (SD ¼ 4.1), and the sample contained 91.7
per cent men, which comes close to the gender distribution of SES overall (87.9 per cent
men). 69.9 per cent of the respondents had a university degree, 84.4 per cent of the
respondents were married and 90.1 per cent had children. At the time of data collection,
participants had been retired for 7.6 years on average (SD ¼ 4.18). Most assignments of
the participating senior experts were in industry/production (33.8 per cent). But many
retirees were engaged in education (22.9 per cent) and in services (22.4 per cent).
Other industry sectors were handcraft (7.8 per cent), agriculture (6.2 per cent), retail
(4.2 per cent), and infrastructure (2.7 per cent). On average, respondents had worked on
5.1 assignments (SD ¼ 6.0) since entry into retirement. The respondents had worked
on average for 5.1 employers (SD ¼ 5.5) in their time being with SES. The average
duration of the respondents’ current assignment was five weeks (SD ¼ 3.9). The weekly
working hours of our sample during a project were 37.3 hours on average (SD ¼ 18.2),
82.2 per cent retirees worked abroad with 15.0 per cent of them working in China, 20.7
per cent in other parts of Asia, 15 per cent in Africa, 15 per cent in Europe, 11.7 per cent
in the USA, and 4.5 per cent in Russia.

H1a
Motivational Goals Life Satisfaction

H1b
H1c

H2a
Occupational
Work Satisfaction
Characteristics H2b
Figure 1.
Theoretical model
Note: H, hypothesis
Measures Post-
All items were answered on five-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (completely retirement life
disagree/not important at all) to 5 (completely agree/very important). Reliability
estimates are reported in Table I.
and work
Life satisfaction was measured with the five-item satisfaction with life scale (Diener satisfaction
et al., 1997). An example item is “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”.
To assess work satisfaction we used the five-item job satisfaction scale from the Job 221
Diagnostic Survey (JDS; Hackman and Oldham, 1975) and adapted it to the specific
work situation (e.g. item: “Generally, I am satisfied with the kind of work I do on my
current project job for SES”).
The five motivational goals were measured with several scales. We used the
achievement confidence subscale of the Achievement Motivation Inventory (Schuler
and Prochaska, 2001) to measure the achievement motive. This facet is theoretically
based on the work of McClelland, Atkinson, and Murray (Schuler and Prochaska, 2001).
We chose the three items with the highest discriminatory power reported in the test
manual. An example item is “I don’t need to be afraid of new situations because
I always get by on my abilities”.
We measured the appreciation motive, autonomy motive, and contact motive
with a German motivational goals scale (Fragebogen zur Analyse Motivationaler
Schemata (FAMOS); Grosse Holtforth and Grawe, 2000). Each subscale consisted
of four items. Participants were asked to indicate the importance of listed general
personal goals, such as “to have my own freedom”, “to have many friends”, and “to
be accepted”.
The generativity motive was measured with eight items from the Loyola
Generativity Scale (LGS; McAdams and de St Aubin, 1992), a 20-item questionnaire
designed to measure a general disposition for generativity. The full facet “passing
on knowledge and skills to the next generation” (e.g. item: “I try to pass along the
knowledge I have gained through my experiences”) and two items each from the facets
“making significant contributions for the betterment of one’s community” (e.g. item:
“I feel as though I have done nothing of worth to contribute to others”, reverse coded),
and “doing things that will be remembered for a long time, will have a lasting impact,
and will leave an enduring legacy” (e.g. item: “others would say that I have made
unique contributions to society”) were used in this study.
Several scales were included to assess the five occupational characteristics. We used
the subscale “feedback from the job itself” from the JDS (Hackman and Oldham, 1975)
to assess occupational achievement. The three-item scale reflects “the degree to which
carrying out the work activities required by the job results in the employee obtaining
direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance”
(Hackman and Oldham, 1975, p. 162) and is therefore an occupational characteristic
corresponding to achievement ambitions (cf. Pifczyk and Kleinbeck, 2000). We adapted
the specific wording of items to fit the context of work in retirement by adding specific
content information (“doing the work” was replaced by “doing the work on the project
job for SES”). An example item is “just doing the work on the project job for SES
provides me with opportunities to figure out how well I am doing”.
Due to the special job situation of our participants, we measured occupational
appreciation in retirement with three items. We developed these questions in close
collaboration with senior experts, pre-tested, and modified the items. The pre-test
included a round table discussion with ten senior experts associated with SES in which
we proposed several items we developed for measuring the degree of appreciation they
 30,2
JMP

222

Table I.

variables
deviations,
reliabilities, and
Means, standard

correlations for all

Variable No. of items M SD α 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
1. Age 1 68.80 4.09 –
2. Gendera 1 0.92 0.28 0.04 –
3. Achievement motive 3 4.19 0.55 0.81 0.03 0.03 –
4. Appreciation motive 4 3.80 0.75 0.92 0.04 −0.10 0.11 –
5. Autonomy motive 4 4.26 0.58 0.84 0.02 −0.09 0.22 0.18 –
6. Contact motive 4 3.46 0.77 0.84 0.07 −0.07 0.12 0.45 0.11 –
7. Generativity motive 8 3.96 0.43 0.67 0.06 −0.01 0.43 0.33 0.17 0.22 –
8. Occupational achievement 3 3.83 0.68 0.68 −0.00 −0.03 0.20 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.29 –
9. Occupational appreciation 3 4.01 0.64 0.85 0.09 −0.08 0.13 0.25 0.06 0.19 0.27 0.23 –
10. Occupational autonomy 3 4.29 0.51 0.50 −0.02 0.00 0.19 0.03 0.12 0.01 0.16 0.34 0.20 –
11. Occupational contact 4 3.98 0.68 0.62 0.04 −0.11 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.15 0.18 0.28 0.22 0.20 –
12. Occupational generativity 6 4.02 0.56 0.70 0.02 0.00 0.19 0.07 0.11 0.12 0.25 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.36 –
13. Life satisfaction 5 3.86 0.55 0.80 0.06 0.03 0.26 0.06 0.17 0.20 0.25 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.04 0.14 –
14. Work satisfaction 5 4.00 0.46 0.70 −0.06 −0.03 0.15 0.11 −0.01 0.08 0.22 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.28 0.14
Notes: n ¼ 644. Correlations of |0.08| or greater at significant at the p o 0.05 level, correlations of |0.11| or greater are significant at p o 0.01, and correlations of
|0.14| or greater are significant at p o0.001. a1 ¼ male, 0 ¼ female
receive from doing the work-related projects. They assessed to what extent the activity Post-
for the SES was considered as prestigious by friends and family (e.g. item: “my retirement life
engagement with SES is highly respected by my friends”).
We assessed occupational autonomy with the JDS subscale “autonomy” consisting
and work
of three items. Again, we adapted the specific wording of items to fit the context of satisfaction
work in retirement by adding specific content information. An example item is “Doing
the work on the project job for SES does not allow me an opportunity to use discretion 223
or participate in decision making”.
To measure occupational contact we used the JDS subscale “dealing with others”,
which measures the degree to which the occupation itself allows the retiree to work
with other people. In addition to the adaptation of the specific wording of items to fit the
context of work in retirement by adding specific content information we modified one
question specifying the senior experts’ job environment (e.g. item: “To what extent does
your current project require a close collaboration with other persons, e.g. clients”).
Occupational generativity was measured with six items from the LGS (McAdams
and de St Aubin, 1992). The LGS items were adapted in order to assess the situation on
the job, for example, from “I try to pass along the knowledge I have gained through my
experiences” to “During my current job with SES, I have the opportunity to pass along
the knowledge I have gained through my experiences”.
Control variables were age and gender because earlier research had shown that
satisfaction increases with age in later decades (e.g. Clark et al., 1996; Hochwarter et al., 2001)
and that women are more satisfied with their jobs than men (e.g. Kaiser, 2007). Participants
stated their age in years and indicated whether their gender was male or female.

Results
Preliminary analyses
Results of the descriptive analyses are presented in Table I. The correlation between
life and work satisfaction was not very high (r ¼ 0.14). This indicates that they can be
distinguished from each other. Life satisfaction was positively and significantly
related to all motivational goals except appreciation motive and to all occupational
characteristics except for occupational contact. Work satisfaction was positively
and significantly correlated with all motivational goals except for autonomy motive
and with all occupational characteristics. All five pairs of motivational goals and their
corresponding occupational characteristics were significantly and positively correlated.
The correlations ranged from 0.12 to 0.25, indicating different but related constructs.
The internal consistency of the scales used to measure occupational appreciation
and occupational contact was below the commonly accepted threshold of 0.65.
Analyses revealed a ceiling effect for occupational autonomy with 15.8 per cent of the
participants achieving the highest possible score. We therefore tested the study’s
measurement model. Confirmatory factor analyses showed an acceptable fit for the
12-factor solution (χ2(1,208) ¼ 2,624.85, p o 0.001; RMSEA ¼ 0.043; CFI ¼ 0.884;
SRMR ¼ 0.049) but not for the seven-factor solution with the thematically
corresponding motivational goals and occupational characteristics loading onto the
same factor (χ 2 (1,253) ¼ 5,455.11, p o 0.001; RMSEA ¼ 0.072; CFI ¼ 0.656;
SRMR ¼ 0.091). This supports the construct validity of the measures in our study.

Hypotheses testing
We used structural equation modelling using MPlus version 6.12 (Muthén and Muthén,
1998-2010) to test the relationships of motivational goals and occupational characteristics
JMP with life and work satisfaction. This procedure allowed us to reduce measurement error
30,2 as some scales reliabilities were relatively low. To decrease the number of free parameters
in the model, the items of the scales generativity motive, occupational generativity, life
satisfaction, and work satisfaction were each grouped into three parcels by combining
items similar in factor loadings, means, and variances. The model showed acceptable fit
to the data (χ2(780) ¼ 1,832.25, po0.001; RMSEA ¼ 0.046; CFI ¼ 0.894; SRMR ¼ 0.079).
224 Results are presented in Table II.
In support of H1a, achievement motive (β ¼ 0.15, p o 0.05), autonomy motive
(β ¼ 0.13, p o 0.05), contact motive (β ¼ 0.24, p o 0.001), and generativity motive
(β ¼ 0.17, p o 0.05) were positively related to life satisfaction. However, appreciation
motive was negatively related to life satisfaction (β ¼ −0.16, p o 0.01). As the variance
inflation factor and the tolerance, respectively, were close to one for all measures, this
unanticipated result cannot be due to multicollinearity, although appreciation motive
was significantly correlated with other independent variables in this study. Further
analysis revealed that adding appreciation motive to the tested model increased the β
coefficients of other independent variables (e.g. contact motive and generativity motive)
and led to an increase of 1 per cent in the explanation of variance in life satisfaction.
This indicates a negative suppression (e.g. Pedhazur, 1997), which is further supported
by the fact that appreciation motive is uncorrelated to life satisfaction on the bivariate
level, but has a negative β weight in the structural equation model. Of the occupational
characteristics, only occupational autonomy was positively and significantly related to
life satisfaction (β ¼ 0.12, p o 0.05) which partly supports H1b.
None of the motivational goals, but all occupational characteristics, had direct
effects on work satisfaction: occupational achievement (β ¼ 0.31, p o 0.001),
occupational appreciation (β ¼ 0.22, p o 0.001), occupational autonomy (β ¼ 0.18,
p o 0.01), occupational contact (β ¼ 0.17, p o 0.01), and occupational generativity
(β ¼ 0.21, p o 0.001). These results support H2b, but not H2a.
We also tested the effects of motivational goals on their corresponding occupational
characteristics (H1c). All tested relationships were positive and significant:

Work satisfaction Corresponding occupational

Variable Life satisfaction (indirect effect) characteristic (R2)
Control variables
Age 0.04 −0.06 –
Gendera 0.03 0.02 –
Motivational goals
Achievement motive 0.15* 0.04 (0.09***) 0.30*** (0.09**)
Appreciation motive −0.16** 0.06 (0.06***) 0.28*** (0.08***)
Autonomy motive 0.13* −0.09 (0.04*) 0.21*** (0.04)
Contact motive 0.24*** −0.03 (0.03*) 0.17** (0.03)
Generativity motive 0.17* −0.01 (0.09*) 0.42*** (0.18***)
Occupational characteristics
Table II. Occupational achievement 0.02 0.31*** –
Standardized effects Occupational appreciation 0.06 0.22*** –
of motivational Occupational autonomy 0.12* 0.18** –
goals, occupational Occupational contact −0.02 0.17** –
characteristics, and Occupational generativity −0.02 0.21*** –
control variables on R2 0.21*** 0.29*** –
criterion variables Notes: n ¼ 644. a1 ¼ male, 0 ¼ female. *p o 0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001
achievement β ¼ 0.30 (p o 0.001), appreciation β ¼ 0.28 (p o 0.001), autonomy β ¼ 0.21 Post-
(p o 0.001), contact β ¼ 0.17 (p o 0.01), and generativity β ¼ 0.42 (p o 0.001). Further, retirement life
we applied a bootstrapping procedure using 5,000 bootstrapping samples with bias
correction to test the indirect effects of motivational goals through their corresponding
and work
occupational characteristics on work satisfaction (H1d). The indirect effects of satisfaction
achievement motive (β ¼ 0.09, p o 0.001), appreciation motive (β ¼ 0.06, p o 0.001),
autonomy motive (β ¼ 0.04, p o 0.05), contact motive (β ¼ 0.03, p o 0.05), and 225
generativity motive (β ¼ 0.09, p o 0.05) were significant and the 95 per cent
bootstrapping confidence intervals did not include 0.
Altogether, motivational goals, occupational characteristics, and control variables
explained 14 per cent of variance in life satisfaction and 20 per cent in work
satisfaction. The motivational goals explained 3 (contact) to 18 per cent (generativity) of
variance in their corresponding occupational characteristics.

Discussion
This study sought to determine the role of motivational goals and specific occupational
characteristics in the explanation of life and work satisfaction in post-retirement
activities. Results of structural equation modelling revealed a pattern in which all
occupational characteristics were directly and positively related to work satisfaction
but not to life satisfaction except for occupational autonomy. On the other hand,
all motivational goals except for appreciation motive were directly and positively
related to life satisfaction and only indirectly related to work satisfaction through their
corresponding task characteristics.
Being motivated by achievement, autonomy, contact, and generativity predicted life
satisfaction, but did not predict work satisfaction. Having relationships, a high quality
standard with strong self-belief, a desire for freedom in decision making and for
passing on knowledge and experiences might be more salient generally in life than
for the specific work situation in post-retirement activities. The fact that the
investigated motivational goals played a role in predicting general life satisfaction
in our sample is congruent with reported relationships between motivational goals and
general life satisfaction (Grosse Holtforth and Grawe, 2000; de St Aubin and McAdams,
1995) and is consistent with Carstensen’s (2006) SST in that meaningful goals, such as
generativity and social contact, play an important motivational role at older ages.
An unexpected result was that being motivated by appreciation served as a classical
suppressor in the model. Although not significantly correlated with life satisfaction,
appreciation motive increased the overall model predictability for life satisfaction and
the regression weight of other predictors by removing irrelevant predictive variance
from them. As a suppressor is defined by its effects on other variables and not by its
own regression weight, a conceptual interpretation is not warranted here (cf. Pandey
and Elliott, 2010).
As hypothesized all of the motivational goals affected the perception of their
corresponding occupational characteristics. The project activity of the retirees is
voluntary and may therefore be selected in order to meet their motivational goals.
Further, all motivational goals were indirectly related to work satisfaction through
their corresponding occupational characteristics indicating that motivational goals,
which are not related to work satisfaction per se, may affect work satisfaction through
the selection of activities that provide characteristics meeting these motivational goals.
All occupational characteristics experienced by individuals during post-retirement
activity were significantly related to work satisfaction. However, due to the low
JMP reliabilities of the scales measuring occupational autonomy and occupational contact,
30,2 the findings regarding these occupational characteristics should be interpreted with
caution. The results are consistent with the job characteristics model (Hackman and
Oldham, 1975) with the important addition that opportunities to pass on knowledge
(occupational generativity) are also important in post-retirement work. This corresponds
to findings on work motives at older ages (e.g. Calo, 2005; Grube and Hertel, 2008; Loi and
226 Shultz, 2007). Of the occupational characteristics only occupational autonomy was
significantly related to life satisfaction. This shows that the possibility to be free in
decision making in post-retirement activities predicts life satisfaction in retirement in
general. These results are consistent with the findings of an earlier study that indicated
that the freedom to make decisions is perceived as a fundamental prerequisite for
ideal framework of post-retirement activities (Maxin and Deller, 2010). That the other
occupational characteristics were not related to life satisfaction may be the result of
occupational characteristics being targeted at the specific post-retirement project activity.

Implications for theory

The main contribution of this study is that it provides support for the differential
effects of motivational goals and occupational characteristics on life and work satisfaction
regarding voluntary post-retirement activities. Specifically, motivational goals seemed to
play an important role in life satisfaction, and occupational characteristics in work
satisfaction domains. Thus, retirees working in voluntary projects seem to clearly
differentiate between perceived life and work satisfaction as two independent constructs.
This study expands existing studies’ on the motivational goals of older workers
(e.g. Kooij et al., 2011) and the occupational characteristics of post-retirement workers
(e.g. Shultz and Adams, 2007). In addition, it focuses on fully retired individuals
volunteering in a job-related activity. The study extends the literature on motivational
goals and occupational characteristics to the area of volunteer active retirees. It provides
support for SST which served as a basis for the selection of motivational goals being
relevant at older ages. The paper further adds to the literature on retirement and post-
retirement work in that it uniquely combines the research areas of post-retirement
activities, volunteer work, motivation, and occupational characteristics.

Practical implications
Post-retirement activities possess a potential to address societal and organizational
problems. In an ageing population, volunteer active retirees are needed to provide an
important pillar of society. The findings of the present study suggest that for retirees to
be satisfied in their volunteer activity, the provision of a certain occupational framework
is important. Organizations wanting to engage post-retirement experts should provide an
environment that provides them opportunities to fulfil their achievement goals, that
shows appreciation and recognition for the contribution they supply, and that provides
decision freedom and flexibility, as well as opportunities for social contacts and passing
on knowledge to others. Providing working conditions that meet the motivational goals of
retirees will be important to entice unpaid retired workers to continue to work (Madvig
and Shultz, 2008). A rather effortless way of implementing this study’s results is to enable
post-retirement workers to serve as mentors. For example, establishing a seniors’
personnel pool according to the model of the Bosch Management Support in Germany as
described by Deller and Pundt (2014) can help to serve two functions: first, retirees feel
appreciated through being affiliated. Second, in the case of exigent project work,
organizations will have easy access to qualified (and motivated) experts which they can Post-
involve in the work process (Madvig and Shultz, 2008). retirement life
Further, our findings have implications for individuals and their retirement
planning. To realize a good transition to retirement in terms of life satisfaction, it will be
and work
important for individuals to plan and realize voluntary post-retirement activities that satisfaction
meet their motivational goals and that provide a work environment characterized by
the occupational characteristics described above. 227
Limitations and future research
A major limitation of this study is related to some of the measures used. Even though
the JDS measures of job characteristics have a long history of use establishing their
reliability and validity, some of its scales’ reliabilities were low in our study. Even if
similarly low reliability estimates for the JDS measures were reported elsewhere
(e.g. Beehr et al., 2000), the low reliability of some of the occupational characteristics is a
concern. However, we addressed this problem by testing the measurement model
and by applying structural equation modelling to account for measurement error.
As the fit of the measurement model was acceptable, we decided to include the
respective scales in our further analysis. The low reliabilities might indicate a problem
in using measures developed for non-retired workers. It also may be due to the types
of work the senior experts were engaged in, as well as the limited length of time they
were associated with each project assignment. Future research could therefore,
consider using self-developed, rather than existing, measures when dealing with
unique populations, such as voluntary active retirees, in order to obtain more desirable
levels of reliability.
A further limitation of this study is the use of only self-report data. In the future,
personal motives and occupational characteristics should be assessed more exactly and
independently from each other. Ideally, in addition to explicit motivational goals,
implicit motivation could be assessed.
Another limitation of the present study was its restricted generalizability. Our sample
consisted of married, well-educated, active German retirees volunteering for work-related
projects. Future investigations on post-retirement activities should also consider
multiple comparative samples (i.e. non-working retirees, older employees before entering
retirement both paid and unpaid retirees) as well as less educated and less financially
sound working retirees. Further, a cross-cultural design could clarify, if the results are
unique for volunteer active retirees in Germany or if they also hold for other countries.
Further, the cross-sectional design of the study did not allow for causal inferences.
The use of a longitudinal design with pre-retirement-post-retirement measures could be
an important contribution. Few recent studies have investigated work-related attitudes
of different generations so far (cf. Dries et al., 2008; Twenge and Campbell, 2008).
A longitudinal design including different age cohorts could be used to understand
cohort effects.
References
Anaby, D., Jarus, T., Backman, C. and Zumbo, B. (2010), “The role of occupational characteristics
and occupational imbalance in explaining well-being”, Applied Research in Quality of Life,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 81-104.
Aquino, J.A., Russell, D.W., Cutrona, C.W. and Altmaier, E.M. (1996), “Employment status, social
support, and life satisfaction among the elderly”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 43
No. 4, pp. 480-489.
JMP Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2008), “Organisational practices and the postretirement employment
experience of older workers”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 36-53.
30,2
Beehr, T.A., Glazer, S., Nielson, N.L. and Farmer, S.J. (2000), “Work and nonwork predictors of
employees’ retirement ages”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 206-225.
Boumans, N., De Jong, A. and Janssen, S. (2011), “Age-differences in work motivation and job
satisfaction. The influence of age on the relationships between work characteristics and
228 workers’ outcomes”, The International Journal of Aging & Human Development, Vol. 73
No. 4, pp. 331-350.
Calo, T.J. (2005), “The generativity track: a transitional approach to retirement”, Public Personnel
Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 301-312.
Carstensen, L.L. (2006), “The influence of a sense of time on human development”, Science,
Vol. 312 No. 5782, pp. 1913-1915.
Clark, A., Oswald, A. and Warr, P. (1996), “Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age?”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 57-81.
de Lange, A.H., van Yperen, N.W., van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. and Bal, P.M. (2010), “Dominant
achievement goals of older workers and their relationship with motivation-related
outcomes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 118-125.
Deller, J. and Hertel, G. (2009), “Demographic change in work organizations”, Zeitschrift für
Personalpsychologie, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 1-2.
Deller, J. and Pundt, L. (2014), “Flexible transitions from work to retirement in Germany”, in
Alcover, C.M., Topa, G., Depolo, M. and Fraccaroli, F. (Eds), Bridge Employment:
A Research Handbook, Routledge, London, pp. 167-192.
Deller, J., Liedtke, P.M. and Maxin, L.M. (2009), “Old-age security and silver workers: an empirical
investigation identifies challenges for companies, insurers, and society”, Geneva Papers on
Risk and Insurance, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 137-157.
Dendinger, V.M., Adams, G.A. and Jacobson, J.D. (2005), “Reasons for working and their
relationship to retirement attitudes, job satisfaction and occupational self-efficacy of bridge
employees”, International Journal of Aging and Human Development, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 21-35.
de St Aubin, E. and McAdams, D.P. (1995), “The relation of generative concern and generative
action to personality traits, satisfaction/happiness with life, and ego development”, Journal
of Adult Development, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 99-112.
Diener, E., Suh, E. and Oishi, S. (1997), “Recent findings on subjective well-being”, Indian Journal
of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 25-41.
Diener, E., Suh, E.N., Lucas, R.E. and Smith, H.L. (1999), “Subjective well-being: three decades of
progress”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 125 No. 2, pp. 276-302.
Dries, N., Pepermans, R. and De Kerpel, E. (2008), “Exploring four generations’ beliefs about
career. is ‘satisfied’ the new ‘successful’?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8,
pp. 907-928.
Grosse Holtforth, M. and Grawe, K. (2000), “Fragebogen zur analyse motivationaler schemata
(Questionnaire for the analysis of motivational schemes)”, Zeitschrift für Klinische
Psychologie und Psychotherapie: Forschung und Praxis, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 170-179.
Grube, A. and Hertel, G. (2008), “Altersbedingte unterschiede in arbeitsmotivation,
arbeitszufriedenheit und emotionalem erleben während der arbeit (Age-related
differences in work motivation, work satisfaction and emotional experience at work)”,
Wirtschaftspsychologie, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 18-29.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), “Development of the job diagnostic survey”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”, Post-
Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-279.
retirement life
Herzog, A.R., House, J.S. and Morgan, J.N. (1991), “Relation of work and retirement to health and and work
well-being in older age”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 202-211.
satisfaction
Hochwarter, W.A., Ferris, G.R., Perrewe, P.L., Witt, L.A. and Kiewitz, C. (2001), “A note on the
nonlinearity of the age-job-satisfaction relationship”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 1223-1237. 229
Humphrey, S., Nahrgang, J. and Morgeson, F. (2007), “Integrating motivational, social, and
contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the
work design literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1332-1356.
Ilmarinen, J. (2006), Towards a Longer Worklife! Ageing and the Quality of Worklife in the
European Union, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki.
Jacob, M. and Guarnaccia, V. (1997), “Motivational and behavioral correlates of life satisfaction in
an elderly sample”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 811-818.
Kaiser, L.C. (2007), “Gender-job satisfaction differences across Europe”, International Journal of
Manpower, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 75-94.
Kanfer, R. and Ackerman, P.L. (2004), “Aging, adult development, and work motivation”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 440-458.
Kim, S. and Feldman, D.C. (2000), “Working in retirement: the antecedents of bridge employment
and its consequences for quality of life in retirement”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1195-1210.
Kooij, D., de Lange, A., Jansen, P. and Dikkers, J. (2008), “Older workers‘ motivation to continue to
work: five meanings of age. A conceptual review”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 364-394.
Kooij, D., de Lange, A., Jansen, P., Kanfer, R. and Dikkers, J.S.E. (2011), “Age and work-related
motives: results of a meta-analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 197-225.
Lawrence, S. and Jordan, P. (2009), “Testing an explicit and implicit measure of motivation”,
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 103-120.
Loher, B., Noe, R., Moeller, N. and Fitzgerald, M. (1985), “A meta-analysis of the relation of job
characteristics to job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 280-289.
Loi, J.L.P. and Shultz, K.S. (2007), “Why older adults seek employment: differing motivations
among subgroups”, Journal of Applied Gerontology, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 274-289.
McAdams, D.P. and de St Aubin, E. (1992), “A theory of generativity and its assessment through
self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography”, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 1003-1015.
McNamara, T.K., Brown, M., Aumann, K., Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Galinsky, E. and Bond, J. (2013),
“Working in retirement: a brief report”, Journal of Applied Gerontology, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 120-132.
Madvig, T.L. and Shultz, K.S. (2008), “Modeling individual’s post-retirement behaviors toward
their former organization”, Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, Vol. 23 Nos 1/2, pp. 17-49.
Maxin, L. and Deller, J. (2010), “Activities in retirement: individual experience of silver work”,
Comparative Population Studies, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 801-832.
Mor-Barak, M.E. (1995), “The meaning of work for older adults seeking employment: the generativity
factor”, International Journal of Aging and Human Development, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 325-344.
Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2010), Mplus User’s Guide 6th ed., Muthén & Muthén,
Los Angeles, CA.
JMP Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2010), “The relationships of age with job attitudes:
a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 677-718.
30,2
Pandey, S. and Elliott, W. (2010), “Suppressor variables in social work research: ways to identify
in multiple regression models”, Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 28-40.
Pedhazur, E.J. (1997), Multiple Regression in Behavioural Research: Explanation and Prediction,
230 Harcourt Brace College, Fort Worth, TX.
Peeters, M.C.W. and van Emmerick, H. (2008), “An introduction to the work and well-being of
older workers. from managing threats to creating opportunities”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 353-363.
Pengcharoen, C. and Shultz, K.S. (2010), “The influences on bridge employment decisions”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 322-336.
Pifczyk, A. and Kleinbeck, U. (2000), “The influence of achievement and affiliation variables on
work motivation and work satisfaction in a social work environment”, Zeitschrift für
Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 57-68.
Rain, J.S., Lane, I.M. and Steiner, D.D. (1991), “A current look at the job satisfaction/life
satisfaction relationship: review and future considerations”, Human Relations, Vol. 44
No. 3, pp. 287-307.
Rhodes, S.R. (1983), “Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: a review and
conceptual analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 328-367.
Schimmack, U., Radhakrishnan, P., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V. and Ahadi, S. (2002), “Culture,
personality, and subjective well-being: integrating process models of life satisfaction”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 582-593.
Schuler, H. and Prochaska, M. (2001), Leistungsmotivationsinventar. Dimensionen
berufsbezogener Leistungsorientierung (Achievement Motivation Inventory), Hogrefe,
Göttingen.
Shultz, K.S. and Adams, G.A. (2007), “In search of a unifying paradigm for understanding aging
and work in the 21st century”, in Shultz, K.S. and Adams, G.A. (Eds), Aging and Work in
the 21st Century, Psychology Press, New York, NY, pp. 303-319.
Stamov-Roßnagel, C. and Biemann, T. (2012), “Ageing and work motivation: a task-level
perspective”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 459-478.
Stamov-Roßnagel, C. and Hertel, G. (2010), “Older workers’ motivation. against the myth of
general decline”, Management Decision, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 894-906.
Tait, M., Padgett, M.Y. and Baldwin, T.T. (1989), “Job and life satisfaction: a reevaluation of the
strength of the relationship and gender effects as a function of the date of the study”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 502-507.
Taylor, M.A., Goldberg, C., Shore, L.M. and Lipka, P. (2008), “The effects of retirement
expectations and social support on post-retirement adjustment. A longitudinal analysis”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 458-470.
Thomas, A., Buboltz, W. and Winkelspecht, C. (2004), “Job characteristics and personality as
predictors of job satisfaction”, Organizational Analysis, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 205-219.
Thompson, C. and Prottas, D. (2006), “Relationships among organizational family support, job
autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 100-118.
Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, S.M. (2008), “Generational differences in psychological traits
and their impact on the workplace”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8,
pp. 862-877.
van den Berg, P. and Feij, J. (2003), “Complex relationships among personality traits, job Post-
characteristics, and work behaviors”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 326-339.
retirement life
Wang, M. and Shultz, K.S. (2010), “Employee retirement: a review and recommendations for
and work
future investigation”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 172–206. satisfaction
Wang, M., Henkens, K. and van Solinge, H. (2011), “Retirement adjustment: a review of theoretical
and empirical advancements”, American Psychologist, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 204-213. 231
Wang, M., Zhan, Y., Liu, S. and Shultz, K.S. (2008), “Antecedents of bridge employment.
A longitudinal investigation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 4, pp. 818-830.
Warr, P., Butcher, V., Robertson, I. and Callinan, M. (2004), “Older people’s well-being as
a function of employment, retirement, environmental characteristics and role preference”,
British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 297-324.
Zaniboni, S., Sarchielli, G. and Fraccaroli, F. (2010), “How are psychosocial factors related to
retirement intentions?”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 271-285.

About the authors

Dr Leena Maren Pundt is a Professor of Human Resources Management at the Hochschule
Bremen, Germany. She received her PhD in I/O Psychology from Leuphana University of Lüneburg
in 2011. Her research focuses on issues of an ageing workforce, such as work motivation and
working conditions of active retirees. She has published on “silver workers” and ageing workforce.
She also worked as a HR Consultant for Diversity Management at Otto Group in Hamburg,
Germany. Dr Leena Maren Pundt is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: leena.
pundt@hs-bremen.de
Dr Anne Marit Wöhrmann is a Psychologist and a Research Assistant of SMARD (Institute
for Strategic HR Management Research and Development) at the Leuphana University of
Lüneburg, Germany. Her research focuses on HR-related topics related to demographic change,
such as managing an ageing workforce and post-retirement career planning.
Jürgen Deller is a Full Professor of Organizational Psychology and a Founding Speaker of
SMARD (Institute for Strategic HR Management Research and Development) at the University
of Lüneburg, Germany. His research interests include ageing issues, such as consequences of the
demographic change for management and human resources, international human resources
management, such as expatriation and repatriation, and knowledge transfer. He has published on
ageing workforce, personnel selection, management development, and international HR. Before
he joined academia, he worked for corporate headquarters of Daimler-Benz group, Stuttgart, later
with DaimlerChrysler Services (debis) AG, Berlin, as a Senior HR manager responsible for the HR
board member’s office and as a Head of Corporate Leadership Development IT Services.
Kenneth S. Shultz is a Professor of Psychology and the Director of the Master of Science
programme in Industrial and Organizational (I/O) Psychology at the California State University,
San Bernardino. He earned his PhD in I/O psychology from the Wayne State University in
Detroit, Michigan. He also completed a National Institute on Aging postdoctoral training
fellowship in social gerontology at the Andrus Gerontology Center at the University of Southern
California. His research foci include the areas of retirement, bridge employment, the ageing
workforce, and applied psychological measurement issues. He has published more than 50 peer
reviewed articles and book chapters on these topics and co-edited (with Gary A. Adams) the book
Aging and Work in the 21st Century (Psychology Press, 2007).

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com