Employment After Retirement: A Review and Framework For Future Research

810411
research-article2018
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206318810411Journal of ManagementSullivan, Al Ariss / Employment After Retirement
Journal of Management
Vol. 45 No. 1, January 2019 262–284
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318810411
10.1177/0149206318810411
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Employment After Retirement: A Review and

Framework for Future Research
Sherry E. Sullivan
Bowling Green State University
Akram Al Ariss
Toulouse Business School
Retirement was once considered an exit from full-time work into full-time leisure. Research
evidence indicates, however, that a growing number of retirees are reentering the labor force.
Although a number of reviews have been conducted on retirement, there has been no compre-
hensive review of the increasing number of studies on work after retirement. It is time to take
stock of the accumulated knowledge on postretirement employment that has been produced by
scholars across multiple fields. Using the construct of employability as an organizing frame-
work, this review examines postretirement employment in light of the five key dimensions of
employability: career motivation, human capital, social capital, identity, and personality. On the
basis of this review, we identify trends and gaps in the literature and recommend major direc-
tions for future research on postretirement employment.
Keywords: postretirement employment; employability; retirement; work transition; career
Throughout the world, the number of individuals ages 60 and over is increasing faster than
those of all younger age groups. By 2050, those ages 60 and over are projected to compose at
least 25% of the population in all regions of the world, except Africa (United Nations, 2017).
Approximately 1 in 4 individuals who are age 65 today are expected to live past the age of 90
(Donner, Sze, & Bluth, 2015). While retirement was once viewed as a fairly predictable,
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Monica Forret, Tim Hall, Yehuda Baruch, Bob Ford, Matthew Quigley,
and Mel Fugate for their extremely helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Appreciation also to
action editor Christopher Porter and the two anonymous reviewers.
Supplemental material for this article is with the manuscript on the JOM website.
Corresponding author: Sherry E. Sullivan, Department of Management, College of Business, Bowling Green State
University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA.
E-mail: ssulliv@bgsu.edu
262
Sullivan, Al Ariss / Employment After Retirement 263
permanent exit from full-time work into full-time leisure (Kojola & Moen, 2016), this view
has now changed. Instead, it is estimated that about 29% of Americans, around 9 million
people, engage in postretirement work (DeSilver, 2016; Greenwald, Copeland, & VanDerhei,
2017; Maestas, 2010). Similarly, 47% of male Canadians ages 60 to 64 reentered the labor
force within 10 years of their retirement (Statistics Canada, 2014). For many, retirement is no
longer a permanent exit from the labor force but a mixture of paid work and leisure activities
(Moen & Flood, 2013). Although a number of thoughtful reviews have been completed on
retirement (Beehr, 1986; Feldman, 1994; Fisher, Chaffee, & Sonnega, 2016; Hansson,
Dekoekkoek, Neece, & Patterson, 1997; Wang & Shi, 2014; Wang & Shultz, 2010), there has
been no comprehensive review of paid employment after retirement.
There are three major reasons why a review that summarizes research on postretirement
employment is needed. First, it is time to take stock of the accumulated knowledge that has
been produced by scholars across multiple fields (e.g., gerontology, sociology, economics,
applied psychology) about the factors that influence retirees’ reentry into the labor force.
The increasing number of studies on postretirement employment has the potential to mean-
ingfully impact scholars’ understanding of late-career decision making and mobility. Prior
research has focused on how individuals in early- and midcareer stages are increasingly
transitioning across country, occupational, organizational, and functional boundaries, with
relatively little attention being devoted to transitions made by individuals in the later stage
of their career (for reviews, see Sullivan, 1999; Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). The extent to
which the boundaries between work and retirement have become more permeable may have
important implications for the further development of contemporary career theories, such as
the boundaryless- and protean-career concepts (Arthur, 2014; Hall, 2004). To realize the
potential of this growing body of research, however, a consolidation and integration of find-
ings on the topic is needed. This article reviews and summarizes the findings of studies that
have examined the factors that influence postretirement work engagement.
Second, a comprehensive review of the factors that influence a retiree’s return to the labor
force may help organizations better understand the process so that more effective strategic
human resource (HR) planning can be achieved. Many organizational leaders are concerned
about predicted labor shortages as the baby boom generation retires (Grant, 2016; Society for
Human Resource Management [SHRM], 2015; United Nations, 2017). If highly trained pro-
fessionals and knowledge workers—such as scientists, physicians, and radiologists, who
typically do not finish their training until they reach their 30s—retire at the age of 60 or 65,
there may be serious shortages of these skilled professionals within the labor force (Donner
et al., 2015). For example, according to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing
(AACN; 2008), one third of the current nursing workforce in the United States will reach
retirement age over the next 10 to 15 years. By 2025, it is predicted that the United States will
experience a shortage of 500,000 nurses (AACN, 2008). Reemploying older individuals who
have retired is one obvious method of reducing labor shortages (Oude Mulders, Henkens, &
Schippers, 2017). Some countries, including Australia, Finland, and the United Kingdom,
have already instituted campaigns to encourage employers to hire retirees in order to address
expected labor shortages (Wöhrmann, Deller, & Wang, 2014). From a practical standpoint,
scholarly research on postretirement employment may help organizations develop HR poli-
cies to more effectively recruit retirees and reduce labor shortages.
Third, much of the research on postretirement employment is atheoretical. There is no
overarching framework to organize the findings of the many studies previously conducted into
work after retirement. To consolidate and integrate the literature on work after retirement, we
264 Journal of Management / January 2019
Figure 1
Employability and Its Dimensions
use the concept of employability as an organizing framework (Forrier & Sels, 2003; Fugate,
2006; Fugate & Kinicki, 2008; Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashford, 2004; van der Heijde & van der
Heijden, 2006), with employability defined as “a psycho-social construct that embodies indi-
vidual characteristics that foster adaptive cognition, behavior, and affect, and that enhance the
individual-work interface” (Fugate et al., 2004: 15). Individuals with high employability do
not only react to environmental demands, such as changes in pension systems, but proactively
anticipate and prepare for probable changes, engage in continuous learning, and initiate
change (Fugate, 2006; van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006). Using this framework, we
examine empirical findings, identify trends and gaps in the literature, and set an agenda for
future research on postretirement employment.
In the sections that follow, first, we present and briefly discuss employability as the orga-
nizing framework for this review. Second, we integrate and review quantitative and qualita-
tive studies of postretirement employment. Third, based upon the review and analysis of
these studies on work after retirement, we recommend an agenda for future research.
Organizing Framework
Employability has been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct that represents
personal characteristics that promote adaptability (Fugate et al., 2004). However, there is no
general consensus among scholars about which personal characteristic are dimensions of
employability (Fugate et al., 2004; Vanhercke, De Cuyper, Peeters, & De Witte, 2014;
Williams, Dodd, Steele, & Randall, 2016). Based upon an examination of the major concep-
tualizations of the construct, we suggest that career motivation, human capital, social capital,
identities, and personality are the key dimensions of employability (Forrier & Sels, 2003;
Fugate, 2006; Fugate & Kinicki, 2008; van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006; Wittekind,
2007; Wittekind, Raeder, & Grote, 2010). Figure 1 presents a model of the theoretical struc-
ture of employability used in this paper.
Dimensions of Employability
The first dimension of employability, career motivation, is concerned with the arousal,
direction, breadth, and persistence of an individual’s career-related decisions and behaviors
(Fugate et al., 2004; London, 1983, 1993). According to London (1983), career motivation is
multifaceted and involves two factors: needs and self-perceptions. Needs include the drive
for money, security, advancement, peer approval, and esteem (Alderfer, 1969) as well as the
desire for continuous learning and generativity (e.g., passing knowledge on to the next gen-
eration; McAdams, de St. Aubin, & Logan, 1993). Self-perception refers to an individual’s
realistic assessment of employment possibilities given his or her perception of the relation-
ship between his or her strengths and weaknesses and the career context (e.g., availability of
jobs, organizational support for learning and development; Fugate et al., 2004; Thijssen, Van
der Heijden, & Rocco, 2008; Vanhercke et al., 2014).
The second dimension of employability is human capital. Human capital includes the
knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) that individuals gain through education, training, and
job experiences (Becker, 1994). A great deal of research has reported on the profound effect
that education and competence development have on earnings (Judge, Cable, Boudreau, &
Bretz, 1995; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999), with Becker (1994) arguing that
these two variables are the most important investments that individuals can make in human
capital. An individual’s willingness to develop new competencies as well as a positive atti-
tude toward changing jobs and learning new skills on these jobs are also seen as important
factors that enhance human capital (Fugate et al., 2004; van der Heijde & van der Heijden,
2006; Wittekind et al., 2010).
Certain aspects of human capital, however, cannot be directly observed. Signaling theory
suggests that some KSAs are often assessed via signals (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel,
2011; Karasek & Bryant, 2012; Spence, 1973). For example, because employers lack informa-
tion about job applicants, applicants may communicate the unobservable characteristic of
quality by using years of schooling, job or organizational tenure, and training history as sig-
nals of quality (Karasek & Bryant, 2012). Similarly, demographic characteristics, such as race,
national origin, or disability status, may also be perceived as signals of human capital
(Wittekind et al., 2010). For instance, employers may perceive retirees as less attractive poten-
tial employees, believing they lack stamina, good health, and technological skills (Patrickson
& Ranzijn, 2003). Likewise, the perceptions of employers may contribute to the development
of obstacles that cause certain groups of individuals to rate their employability as lower. For
example, older workers may perceive themselves as less likely to secure employment than
younger workers due to recognized age discrimination (Kovalenko & Mortelmans, 2016).
The third dimension of employability, social capital, is the informational (e.g., providing
advice, knowledge) and emotional (e.g., expressing concern, listening) support gained
through relationships with others that individuals use to identify and obtain career opportu-
nities (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Forret, 2018; McArdle, Waters, Briscoe, & Hall, 2007).
Scholars have examined how the nature and quality of an individual’s interactions with
diverse sets of people, including family, friends, community leaders, and business associ-
ates (e.g., coworkers, mentors), may influence social capital (Burt, 1992; Forret &
Dougherty, 2001; Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981).
The fourth dimension of employability is identity. Identity is an individual’s self-definition;
it answers the question, “Who am I?” (McAdams, 1999; Miscenko & Day, 2016).
Conceptualizations of employability have explicitly focused on the work domain (Fugate et al.,
2004: 25), with career identity described as the degree by which a person defines himself or
herself by his or her work or career (e.g., Fugate & Kinicki, 2008). In this article, we take a
somewhat broader view and extend the conceptualization of employability by recognizing that
individuals have multiple identities (Miscenko & Day, 2016; Ramarajan, 2014; Welbourne &
Paterson, 2016) and that both work (e.g., professional, organizational, and work group) and
nonwork (e.g., parent, spouse, child, and friend) identities influence career options, decisions,
and behaviors. Following the many scholars who have discussed the “myth of separate worlds”
(e.g., Kanter, 1977; Ramarajan & Reid, 2013), we suggest that both work and nonwork identi-
ties are dimensions of employability because an individual’s work and nonwork identities are
connected. Changes in an individual’s work or professional identity may influence his or her
nonwork identity and vice versa. For example, Ladge, Clair, and Greenberg (2012) examined
cross-domain identity transitions as pregnant women adapted their established work identity to
integrate a change in their nonwork identity (i.e., motherhood). Similarly, Mainiero and Sullivan
(2006) examined how men and women make decisions to change jobs or occupations based
upon the interaction of their work and nonwork identities. Ramarajan and Reid (2013) detailed
how the blurring boundaries between the work and home domains for telecommuters caused
them to reconstruct and renegotiate their work and nonwork identities. Thus, we contend that
employability must reflect both work and nonwork identities.
The fifth dimension of employability is personality. A number of personality traits have
been suggested as being linked to employability (Bal, DeJong, Jansen, & Bakker, 2012;
Fugate et al., 2004), with openness and proactivity proposed as being especially theoretically
relevant to the construct (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008; Fugate et al., 2004; Nauta, Vianen, Heijden,
Dam, & Willemsen, 2009). Openness refers to an individual’s acceptance of change and new
experiences as well as the willingness to enact change. Those with a high level of openness
are flexible in uncertain situations (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005) and are willing to change
tasks, take on new jobs, or engage in learning in order to meet evolving work requirements
(Nauta et al., 2009). Proactivity refers to the extent to which individuals take action to affect
their work context (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Proactive individuals are likely to expand their
social networks (Trusty, Allen, & Fabian, 2018) and seek out information to identify career
opportunities (Fugate, 2006; Fugate & Kinicki, 2008).
Article Search Procedure

To locate studies on predictors of postretirement employment, we performed a search
using the Web of Science’s Social Science Index database from 1965 to 2017. In order to
identify as many articles as possible from across multiple fields, no search limitations were
made as regards discipline. We conducted the search using the following keywords: work
after retirement, postretirement employment, postretirement work, bridge employment,
bridge jobs, and unretirement. The search produced 154 articles.
Articles reporting the results of quantitative or qualitative studies were included in this
review if their author(s) defined the sample as (a) retirees who were currently engaged in
paid employment, (b) retirees who were being studied to determine what factors may influ-
ence their engagement in paid employment, or (c) pre-retirees who were being studied to
determine what variables may influence their reentry into the labor force after retiring. Of the
154 articles, 61 were excluded because they were conceptual (e.g., Feldman, 1994; Lytle,
Clancy, Foley, & Cotter, 2015; Tempest & Coupland, 2017), examined unpaid work (i.e.,
volunteering), or did not examine factors that influenced postretirement work engagement at
the individual level of analysis. For example, Lux and Scherger’s (2017) article was excluded
because they did not examine factors that may influence engagement in postretirement
Figure 2
Number of Articles on Postretirement Employment per Year by Academic Field
*Management encompasses organizational behavior and applied psychology.
employment but instead used postretirement employment as a predictor of life satisfaction.

Likewise, Cook’s (2013) article was excluded because she explored how retirees’ self-con-
cept altered due to their engagement in volunteer activities. The final number of articles
included in this review was 93; Appendix A includes the references for these articles (see
online supplement). These 93 articles came from 56 different journals, with the largest num-
ber of articles published in the International Journal of Aging and Human Development (n =
8), Journal of Vocational Behavior (n = 6), and Work, Aging and Retirement (n = 5).
Publication dates of the articles reviewed ranged from 1985 to 2017. Appendix B contains a
table summarizing the studies examined in this review (see online supplement).
As can be seen in Figure 2, in the past decade, the number of published articles on postre-
tirement employment has grown dramatically. Almost 60% of the total articles reviewed in
this article were published since 2012. Articles on postretirement employment have been
published in several academic fields, with the largest number of articles being published in
the fields of management, which encompasses applied psychology and organizational behav-
ior (n = 32), and gerontology (n = 29).
To organize the increasing number of empirical studies on work after retirement, we used
employability as a framework. Given the increasing number of individuals engaged in postretire-
ment employment, retirees, like workers in the early- and midcareer stages, are making choices,
and their options and choices are influenced by their employability. Although the prior definition
of employability as the ability to obtain employment within and between the boundaries of orga-
nizations based upon proactive adaptability (Fugate et al., 2004) is still appropriate, its previous
applications have been too narrow. Just as employability has explanatory power and practical
utility for workers in the early- and midcareer stages, it is appropriate and useful for workers in
late career. The increase in retirees’ reentry into the labor force calls for a change in how we view
employability. Similarly to how our thinking about careers has evolved due to rapid technological
advances, globalization, and changes in the psychological work contract, so must our thinking
and application of employability as more retirees reenter the labor force. In the following sections,
studies on postretirement employment are discussed based upon the key dimensions of employ-
ability: career motivation, human capital, social capital, identities, and personality.
Career Motivation
A large number of studies on work after retirement have focused on the employability
dimension of career motivation. Most of these studies have focused on needs rather than
self-perceptions.
Needs
To examine how financial needs influence work after retirement, numerous studies have
used income as a proxy for financial need. Most studies have found that individuals with
greater wealth (Burkert & Hockfellner, 2017; de Wind, van der Pas, Blatter, & van der Beek,
2016; Dingemans, Henkens, & van Solinge, 2015; Fontana & Frey, 1990; Pattersson, 2014;
Toughill, Mason, Beck, & Christopher, 1993; Yang, 2011), including total household income
(Gonzales, Lee, & Brown, 2017) and pension income (Burtless & Moffitt, 1985; Cho, Lee,
& Woo, 2016; Deller, Liedtke, & Maxin, 2009; Gonzales et al., 2017; Holden, 1988; Moen
& Flood, 2013; Pleau, 2010; Rad, Rashidian, Arab, & Souri, 2017; Ruhm, 1990; Saba &
Guerin, 2005), were less likely to engage in postretirement employment.
Some scholars, however, have called the simple linear relationship between financial need
and work after retirement into question, arguing that the relationship is more complex. For
example, Cahill, Giandrea, and Quinn (2015) found a U-shaped relationship between preretire-
ment salary and work after retirement. They contend that retirees at the lower end of the wage
distribution work out of actual financial need, while those at the higher end do so out of choice.
Other scholars have suggested variations in the relationship between financial need and work
after retirement due to differences in age and race. For instance, Schuetze (2015) reported that
older male employed retirees were motivated by the need to give back to society, whereas
younger employed male retirees were motivated by financial need. Choi, Tang, and Copeland
(2017) reported that financial need significantly influenced the decision of Black retirees to
work after retirement, whereas health significantly influenced the decision of Latino retirees.
Other scholars have found a complex mix of factors, including gender (Simpson, Richardson,
& Zorn, 2012; Zhan, Wang, & Shi, 2015) and prior occupation (Armstrong-Stassen & Staats,
2012), that, interacting with needs, influence engagement in postretirement work. For example,
Armstrong-Stassen and Staats (2012) found that preretirement occupation significantly influ-
enced what needs drove women, but not men, to engage in postretirement work. Women who
retired from professional occupations (e.g., engineer, nurse, accountant) rated the needs for
social interaction and growth (e.g., pride from working, sense of accomplishment) as signifi-
cantly more important to their engagement in postretirement employment than did women who
retired from managerial occupations (i.e., supervised others) or men, regardless of the men’s
preretirement occupation. Nobahar, Ahmadi, Alhani, and Khoshknab (2015) reported that retired
nurses in Iran reentered the labor force because of a combination of factors, including financial
need, the expectations of others, and the need to use their knowledge or serve society.
A few studies have explored the relationship between need for authenticity, control, or
flexibility and postretirement employment. August (2011) found that women engaged in
postretirement employment to fulfill their need for authenticity (i.e., the need to be true to
oneself). Virtanen et al. (2017) reported that individuals were more likely to engage in post-
retirement employment if they would have control over their work schedule (e.g., workday
start and end time, breaks) and if the job was not physically demanding. Bal et al. (2012)
found that retirees who needed flexibility and negotiated flexible work schedules were more
likely to engage in postretirement employment, regardless of whether the work climate was
accommodative (e.g., supportive, values the contributions of older employees) or develop-
mental (e.g., provides training and career development).
Some studies also examined the relationship between needs and type of postretirement
work. Fasbender, Wang, Voltmer, and Deller (2016) found that those who perceived work as
fulfilling social (e.g., work provides a sense of belonging and social contact) and personal
(e.g., work provides satisfaction and important tasks) needs were more likely to engage in paid
postretirement employment. Those who perceived work as fulfilling generative needs (e.g.,
work offers chance to pass knowledge to others and contribute to society) were more likely to
engage in unpaid caregiving or volunteer activities. Kerr and Armstrong-Stassen (2011) found
that working retirees who sought independence and personal fulfillment were more likely to
be self-employed, whereas those who wished to fulfill generative needs, desired physical and
mental activity, or wanted new experiences tended to be employed by organizations.
Self-Perceptions
Although many studies have examined needs, less research has been conducted on the
self-perception aspect of career motivation. Self-perception refers to a retiree’s self-
knowledge of his or her competences or type of employment preferences (e.g., working
hours, type of supervision) and of the likelihood of obtaining employment. Research on retir-
ees’ self-perceptions has focused on perceived obstacles to finding postretirement employ-
ment and how unemployment rates influence employability (Dingemans et al., 2015; van
Solinge, 2014; Von Bonsdorff, Shultz, Leskinen, & Tansky, 2009).
Retirees have reported many obstacles to obtaining work including ageism, unsupportive work
climates, and their own inability to effectively search for employment (Armstrong-Stassen &
Staats, 2012; Dingemans & Henkens, 2014; Furunes et al., 2015; Kim, 2014; Kojola & Moen,
2016; Platman, 2003; Segel-Karpas, Bamberger, & Bacharach, 2015; Yang, 2012). Retirees have
described being unable to locate positions that match their job preferences, such as the desire for
part- rather than full-time work (Ruhm, 1994), or the dislike of specific postretirement work
arrangements, such as job sharing (Mariappanadar, 2013). Rau and Adams (2005), using an
experimental design, found that retirees in the United States were most attracted to organizations
with help-wanted advertisements that included an equal-opportunity statement targeted toward
older workers and also included statements about the availability of flexible schedules and the
opportunity for older workers to train and mentor other employees. These retirees may have per-
ceived the details presented in certain want ads as signals that the employer was welcoming of
older job applicants. Such job advertisements may enhance retirees’ perception that they can
obtain a job with the firm.
Qualitative research suggests that retirees may consider good physical health as a major fac-
tor in self-perceived employability. For example, the individuals who participated in Sewdas
et al.’s (2017) interviews (n = 15) and focus groups (n = 18) indicated that good physical health,
coupled with the offering of flexible work arrangements (e.g., part-time hours, working from
home), was necessary for their engagement in postretirement employment. Similarly, the pre-
retirees interviewed by Wöhrmann, Deller, and Wang (2014a) reported that they would not con-
sider postretirement employment unless they were healthy enough to do the work.
Human Capital
Numerous studies have examined the employability dimension of human capital and postre-
tirement work engagement. Many of these studies have examined the relationship between educa-
tion or work history and postretirement work engagement. A number of studies have also
examined the relationship of working after retirement and demographic variables as signals of
human capital.
Education
Scholars have suggested that education is an important aspect of employability (Becker, 1994;
Judge et al., 1995), and research on work after retirement illustrates its importance. Although
some studies found no significant relationship between education and work after retirement (de
Wind et al., 2016; Gonzales et al., 2017; Hill, Snell, & Sterns, 2015; Maestas, 2010), the majority
of studies have found that those with higher levels of education were more likely to engage in
postretirement employment (Bjursell, Nystedt, Björklund, & Sternäng, 2017; Burtless & Moffitt,
1985; Pattersson, 2014; Pleau, 2010; van Solinge, 2014; Von Bonsdorff et al., 2009; Wang &
Chan, 2011; Wang, Zhan, Liu, & Shultz, 2008). Moreover, research suggests that retirees’ level of
education affects the type and availability of employment open to them. For example, retirees
reported lack of education as an obstacle to self-employment (Schuetze, 2015; Zissimopoulos &
Karoly, 2009), and those with lower levels of education were more likely to work part-time rather
than full-time after retirement (Hayward, Hardy, & Liu, 1994). Griffin and Hesketh (2008) found
that retirees with higher levels of education were significantly more likely to engage in paid post-
retirement employment, or a combination of paid employment and unpaid volunteer work, than
those with less education.
Work History
Some research has explored how work history, specifically an individual’s preretirement work
skills and experiences, is related to postretirement employment. For instance, occupation-specific
skills (Gobeski & Beehr, 2009) or a medium or high level of skills (Gonzales et al., 2017) were
positively associated with work after retirement. Individuals who had made more frequent job
changes throughout their career were also more likely to work after retirement (Hayward et al.,
1994; Holden, 1988). In comparison, those who had little desire to use their skills (Wöhrmann
et al., 2014b) or who had been employed in a more traditional, bureaucratic organization (Hayward
et al., 1994) were less likely to engage in postretirement employment.
It was somewhat surprising that a number of variables that scholars predicted would be
related to postretirement employment were not. For example, organizational tenure, schedule
control, meaningful work, burnout (Moen, Kojola, Kelly, & Karakaya, 2016), work overload
(Griffin & Hesketh, 2008), and work demands (Kalokerinos, Hippel, & Henry, 2015) were
not shown to be related to postretirement employment.
In addition to studying engagement in work after retirement, a few studies explored the
relationship between preretirement work history and retirees’ engagement in different types
of employment. Retirees with greater occupational tenure (Davis, 2003) or who had experi-
enced work strain in their former occupation (Gobeski & Beehr, 2009) were more likely to
choose work in a different field from that of their preretirement occupation.
Demographics as Signals of Human Capital

As previously discussed, demographic variables may be perceived as signals of the
employability dimension of human capital (Connelly et al., 2011; Karasek & Bryant, 2012;
Spence, 1973). Studies of work after retirement have looked at the demographic variables of
age, gender, race, and health.
Age. Numerous studies (Bjursell et al., 2017; Davis, 2003; Dingemans et al., 2015; Gonzales
et al., 2017; Kim & Feldman, 2000; Maestas, 2010; Pandya, 2016; Pattersson, 2014; van Solinge,
2014; Wang et al., 2008) have reported that younger retirees (e.g., ages 55–64) were more likely
to engage in postretirement employment than older retirees (e.g., ages 65 and over). Older retirees
were more likely to be self-employed than younger retirees, perhaps because these older individu-
als experienced difficulties in becoming employed by organizations (Schuetze, 2015; Zissimo-
poulos & Karoly, 2009).
Gender. Many studies have found that men were more likely than women to work
after retirement (Davis, 2003; de Wind et al., 2016; Griffin & Hesketh, 2008; Maestas,
2010; Pattersson, 2014; Rad et al., 2017; van Solinge, 2014). Also, male retirees tended to
work in a different field from that of their preretirement occupation (Wang et al., 2008),
become self-employed (Cahill, Giandrea, & Quinn, 2017; Schuetze, 2015; van Solinge,
2014; Zissimopoulos & Karoly, 2009), or begin a second career (Boveda & Metz, 2016).
In contrast, female retirees tended to be employed in the same occupational sector as they
worked in prior to retiring (Ruhm, 1990; Von Bonsdorff et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2008).
Race. Relatively little is known about race and work after retirement, with a few stud-
ies reporting no differences in postretirement employment due to race (Gonzales et al.,
2017; Perkins, 1993). Studies (all conducted in the United States) have reported that
Black and White retirees were more likely to engage in postretirement employment than
were Hispanic retirees (Choi et al., 2017; Maestas, 2010), and White retirees were more
likely than those of other races to work in a different sector than their preretirement occu-
pation (Ruhm, 1990).
Health. Not surprisingly, many studies have found a positive relationship between good
physical health and the likelihood of working after retirement (Cahill, Giandrea, & Quinn, 2011;
de Wind et al., 2016; Dingemans et al., 2015; Gonzales et al., 2017; Griffin & Hesketh, 2008;
Hayward et al., 1994; Holden, 1988; Kim & Feldman, 2000; Pleau, 2010; Ruhm, 1994; Saba
& Guerin, 2005; Toughill et al., 1993; van Solinge, 2014; Wang et al., 2008). However, given
increasing concerns about dementia as a greater portion of the world’s population is now ages 60
and over (United Nations, 2017), it was somewhat surprising that few studies have examined the
relationship between mental health and postretirement work engagement. Stafford et al. (2017)
found that good mental health was positively associated with postretirement employment, while
de Wind et al. (2016) found no significant relationship between the two variables.
Social Capital
There has been an increasing amount of research on the employability dimension of social
capital and workers in their early- and midcareer stages (Forret, 2018). There has been rela-
tively little research, however, on the relationship between social capital, especially in the
form of informational and emotional support, and work after retirement.
Informational Support
Kim (2014) examined how informational support (e.g., advice, knowledge) influenced
the transition process of well-educated professionals as they retired and moved into a new
occupation. Based upon in-depth interviews, Kim found that retirees moved through four
stages of transition, with the third stage centered on the making of new professional con-
nections. Retirees who effectively developed and used professional connections were able
to successfully transition from one occupation to another (e.g., engineer to business
owner, brokerage agent to real estate agent). These retirees also used these new connec-
tions to obtain assignments of increasing responsibility. The retirees in Hennekam’s
(2015) study discussed how they used the professional connections that they had previ-
ously developed throughout their preretirement work life to start their postretirement
businesses.
Emotional Support
Adams and Rau (2004) reported that retirees who had higher levels of support for their job
search efforts were more likely to search for postretirement employment. Wöhrmann, Deller,
and Wang (2013) found that pre-retirees who experienced social support at their current job
were more likely to consider working for their current employer after retirement. Wöhrmann
et al. (2014a) examined the influence of emotional support on work after retirement using
both semistructured interviews (n = 22) and surveys (n = 212). They found that the approval
of important others (e.g., spouse, family, friends) was positively related to pre-retirees’ inten-
tion to work after retirement. Moreover, social approval strengthened the positive relation-
ship between expected work outcomes (e.g., financial rewards, passing on knowledge to
others) and intention to engage in postretirement employment.
Identities
As previously discussed, we extend the conceptualization of employability by discussing
individuals’ multiple identities (e.g., Welbourne & Paterson, 2016). This section examines the
relationship between work and nonwork identities, respectively, and work after retirement.
Work Identity
Loss or changes in one’s work identity upon retirement may have a pronounced impact
upon individuals and influence their engagement in postretirement employment. For exam-
ple, Armstrong-Stassen, Schlosser, and Zinni (2012) examined how individuals, especially
those who become embedded in the responsibilities, routines, and social relationships of
work, may experience severe work identity loss upon retirement. As hypothesized, they
found that retirees who experienced severe work identity loss were significantly more likely
to intend to reenter the labor force. Topa and Alcover (2015) discussed how experiences with
workplace age discrimination caused some individuals to internalize negative stereotypes
about older workers and adopt what has been called an “older worker identity.” Those who
adopted this (negative) older worker identity described themselves as having lower motiva-
tion, creativity, and flexibility and were unlikely to work after retirement.
A number of studies have examined postretirement work engagement and variables that
reflected how central work may be to an individual’s identity. For instance, research has
found that those who felt a strong connection to their work, including having higher work
engagement (de Wind et al., 2016), work attachment (van Solinge, 2014), and work involve-
ment (Saba & Guerin, 2005; Topa & Alcover, 2015), were more likely to engage in postre-
tirement employment. Those who valued the work domain more strongly than the nonwork
domain were more likely to work after retirement (Furunes et al., 2015). In contrast, those
who had psychologically disengaged from work prior to their retirement (Dingemans et al.,
2015) or were psychologically prepared for retirement (Wang et al., 2008) were less likely to
work after retirement. Occupational commitment predicted whether retirees worked in the
same or different field as their preretirement occupation (Jones & McIntosh, 2010; Zhan,
Wang, & Yao, 2013). The relationship between occupational commitment and postretirement
work, however, was moderated by financial considerations. Occupational commitment influ-
enced retirees’ engagement in postretirement employment when economic stress was low.
Several studies have examined how a gendered work identity may influence work after retire-
ment. Research suggests that through socialization and learning, individuals internalize beliefs
about acceptable gender role behaviors, with men and women, respectively, being more focused
on different work characteristics (Eagly, 1987; Eddleston, Veiga, & Powell, 2006; Konrad,
Ritchie, Lieb, & Corrigall, 2000). For example, men tend to pay greater attention to recognition
and prestige, while women tend to pay greater attention to affiliation and relationships (Konrad
et al., 2000). Zhan et al. (2015) found that gender identity moderated the relationship between
status seeking and work after retirement; the relationship between status seeking and work after
retirement was stronger for men than for women. Gender identity, however, did not moderate the
relationship between communion seeking (e.g., sense of obligation to care for others) and work
after retirement. Bennett, Beehr, and Lepisto (2016) found no interaction between gender and
traditional gender role identity (e.g., man as breadwinner, woman as caregiver) and work after
retirement.
Two studies examined multiple identities and working retirees. Some of the working retirees
studied by Hennekam (2015) experienced stress and confusion as they tried to integrate what they
perceived as two incompatible identities: their identity as a creative artist and their identity as a
self-employed entrepreneur. Some coped with their dual identities by separating their creative
from noncreative activities, whereas others emphasized the creative identity while minimizing the
entrepreneurial identity. Yang (2012) detailed how individuals’ identity as a parent and as a stig-
matized worker influenced their work in retirement. Because of their strong parental identity and
belief that it is a parent’s duty to fully finance their children’s lifestyles, retirees in South Korea
were driven by financial need to take whatever jobs were available. They accepted jobs that were
often “socially disdained” (Yang, 2012: 186), with retirees concealing this type of employment
from family and friends. Moreover, cultural ageism and negative social views of those who were
employed at jobs perceived to be dirty and menial (e.g., janitor, caregiving to elderly) caused these
working retirees to experience identity devaluation (i.e., marginalization).
Nonwork Identity
Although few studies have focused specifically on the relationship between nonwork
identity and work after retirement, numerous studies have examined marital status and par-
enthood, which can be considered proxies for one’s identity as a spouse or parent. Most stud-
ies have not found a significant relationship between postretirement employment and marital
status (Davis, 2003; Dendinger, Adams, & Jacobson, 2005; de Wind et al., 2016; Gonzales
et al., 2017; Kim & Feldman, 2000; Wang et al., 2008). Studies have reported that employed
retirees who were married were more likely to work longer hours (Burtless & Moffitt, 1985;
Ruhm, 1990) but were less likely to be self-employed (Kerr & Armstrong-Stassen, 2011)
than their single counterparts.
In addition to examining marital status, research has also examined the influence of being
married to a spouse who is employed. It has been suggested that spouses may choose to coor-
dinate their retirement so both are either employed or retired (e.g., Cahill et al., 2011;
Pattersson, 2014). Some studies have found a positive relationship between having a working
spouse and postretirement employment (Gonzales et al., 2017; Hayward et al., 1994; Holden,
1988; Kim & Feldman, 2000), while other studies have reported no relationship (de Wind
et al., 2016; Dingemans et al., 2015; Moen et al., 2016). A few studies, however, have exam-
ined whether gender influences the relationship between having a working spouse and
postretirement employment. Using Swedish government data, Pattersson (2014) found that
married women with a retired husband were less likely to engage in postretirement work,
while married women with an employed husband were more likely to work after retirement.
Swedish men, however, were likely to engage in postretirement employment regardless of
their wife’s employment status. In contrast, using panel data from the U.S. Health and
Retirement Study, Cahill et al. (2011) reported that men, but not women, were more likely to
engage in postretirement employment if their spouse was working.
Research on the relationship between work after retirement and an individual’s identity as
a parent or caregiver to a family member has produced conflicting results, perhaps due to
measurement issues. Studies that measured the presence of children (Moen et al., 2016) or
grandchildren (Dingemans et al., 2015) reported no significant relationship with work after
retirement. In contrast, studies that measured the number of children (Pleau, 2010) or having
children to financially support (Kim & Feldman, 2000; Yang, 2012) found a significant
positive relationship with postretirement work engagement. Likewise, some studies have
found that having caregiving responsibilities for a child (Moen & Flood, 2013) or spouse
(Gonzales et al., 2017) decreased the odds of working after retirement. Other studies have
found no relationship between postretirement work engagement and various forms of care-
giving responsibilities, including caring for children, grandchildren, parents, and in-laws (de
Wind et al., 2016; Furunes et al., 2015; Moen et al., 2016; Pleau, 2010).
Personality
Conceptualizations of employability have recognized personality, especially the traits of
proactivity and openness, as an important dimension of employability (e.g., Fugate &
Kinicki, 2008; Nauta et al., 2009). Relatively little research, however, has been completed on
the relationship between personality and work after retirement.
Proactivity and Openness

Of the small number of studies on the relationship between personality and work after
retirement, only two have examined proactivity or openness to change. Griffin and Hesketh
(2008) surveyed 987 pre-retirees in Australia and found that proactivity was positively
related to postretirement employment. Wöhrmann, Fasbender, and Deller (2016), surveying
1,071 employees of a German logistics company, reported that openness to change was posi-
tively associated with intentions to engage in postretirement work.
Other Personality Variables

Using panel study data from the Netherlands, van Solinge (2014) found that sensation seek-
ing was positively related to postretirement employment. Zissimopoulos and Karoly (2009),
using panel study data from the United States, reported that there was no relationship between
risk aversion and self-employment among retirees. Wöhrmann et al. (2016) found that Germans
who were highly conservative (i.e., have preference for what is known) were less likely to work
after retirement, while Davis (2003) found that Americans with a higher entrepreneurial orien-
tation were more likely to work in the same industry as their preretirement occupation.
Directions for Future Research

Over the last decade, there has been an increasing number of studies that have examined
work after retirement. We used the construct of employability (Forrier & Sels, 2003; Fugate
& Kinicki, 2008; Thijssen et al., 2008) as a framework to organize and integrate the findings
of studies on work after retirement and suggest that it also be used as the basis for developing
a theory-driven agenda for future research on postretirement work engagement.
We begin our recommendations for the future study of postretirement work engagement
by focusing on each of the key dimensions of employability: career motivation, human capi-
tal, social capital, identities, and personality. Next, we broaden the scope to recommend how
the conceptualization of employability can be further developed. Specifically, in addition to
extending employability’s dimensions to include nonwork identities, we suggest that
employability be explicitly conceptualized as a dynamic variable that may change over time.
Finally, we consider the research implications of this review of postretirement employment
for the study of strategic HR management.
Career Motivation
Much of the research on career motivation has concentrated on the relationship between needs,
particularly, financial needs, and postretirement employment. While early research focused on the
simple relationship between needs and work after retirement, newer studies have taken a more
complex approach, considering how demographic factors, such as gender, race (e.g., Choi et al.,
2017; Schuetze, 2015), or preretirement work occupation (Armstrong-Stassen & Staats, 2012),
may influence the relationship. We recommend that future studies continue to take a more com-
plex approach to studying work after retirement by exploring the possible moderating effects of
psychological factors, such as social norms and values. For instance, social norms about the
meaning of work and leisure may influence even those with high levels of pension income to
consider reentering the labor force after retirement. Values (e.g., Protestant work ethic, Confucian
philosophy) or pressure from peers who have already reentered the labor force may moderate the
relationship between needs (e.g., financial, control, authenticity) and postretirement work
engagement.
Although there has been a large number of studies conducted on the relationship between
various needs and work after retirement, less is known about the relationship between self-per-
ceptions and postretirement employment. Many of the studies on retirees’ self-perceptions have
focused on obstacles, especially age discrimination (Dingemans & Henkens, 2014; Yang, 2012).
The influence of age discrimination and other structural factors (e.g., local and national unem-
ployment rates) on work after retirement is important to consider; however, scholars should also
examine the interaction of these environmental factors with individual factors, such as job pref-
erences (e.g., desire for part-time or flexible work schedules). For instance, objective labor mar-
ket data may indicate the availability of a large quantity of open positions, but these indicators
should be considered in light of retirees’ perceptions of the quality of these job openings.
Somewhat surprisingly, research has not considered how technological changes may have
had a positive impact on retirees’ self-perceptions, especially for those retirees with health
issues or who prefer to work from home. Prior studies reported that individuals perceive current
or future poor health as an obstacle to reentering the labor force after retirement (Sewdas et al.,
2017; Wöhrmann et al., 2014a). As tech-savvy baby boomers retire, opportunities to engage in
newer forms of employment, such as telecommuting and crowdsourcing via virtual platforms
(e.g., Amazon MTurk, Spain’s Adtriboo.com; Boudreau, Jesuthasan, & Creelman, 2015), may
enhance retirees’ self-perceptions. Future research should move beyond studying the different
types of employment (e.g., part-time or full-time work hours; same or different field of prere-
tirement occupation) examined in prior studies (Hayward et al., 1994; Ruhm, 1990) to explore
how technology may alter jobs to better fit the needs and preferences of retirees.
Human Capital
Although much is known about the job search behaviors of individuals in the early stages of
their careers (see Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz’s [2001] review), the extent to which retirees
who desire employment or certain types of employment (e.g., part-time vs. full-time) but are
unable to secure it is largely unknown. Prior studies have examined the employability dimension
of human capital, in the form of education and work history, and work after retirement. A greater
understanding of the relationship between work after retirement and other factors—such as a
person’s knowledge of the job market and the most effective methods of searching, applying, and
interviewing for job openings—is needed. The development of older workers’ human capital,
including how retirees learn which KSAs need to be acquired or updated in order to match chang-
ing labor market demands, is becoming of increasing interest to scholars (Lim, Oh, Ju, & Kim,
2018). Similarly, there is growing interest in studying retirees as the next generation of entrepre-
neurs (Singh & DeNoble, 2003). Future studies should consider how human capital factors may
interact with situational factors to influence a person’s transition from retirement to creating a new
business or training for a new occupation. Future research is also needed on how the accumulation
and continuous updating of human capital over a life span influences retirees’ opportunities
to engage in different types of work after retirement, including entrepreneurship and
self-employment.
Social Capital
This review of the studies on the relationship between social capital and postretirement
employment suggests that scholars should use more sophisticated research designs and con-
sider how network members may influence retirees’ engagement in postretirement employ-
ment. Future research would benefit from the use of more nuanced measures, such as scales
that capture the type of support provided (e.g., informational resources that help individuals
make change, or emotional support that is helpful at times of uncertainty) as well as the
amount and quality of the support. Longitudinal research could be used to examine how
individuals from retirees’ familial, social, professional, and community networks may give
various types of support during different stages of the transition from retirement back to
work. For example, given the increasing interest on retirees’ transition into entrepreneurship
(Hennekam, 2015; Kerr & Armstrong-Stassen, 2011), how the support of mentors, former
coworkers, and relevant others may help retirees become entrepreneurs is an area deserving
of further study. Likewise, additional research on how retirees develop and use social capital
to effectively transition into new occupations or self-employment is needed.
Prior studies have detailed how retirees may use networks to enable the successful transition
to work after retirement (e.g., Hennekam, 2015; Kim, 2014), yet scholars have not studied how
the career behaviors and attitudes of members of the retiree’s network may influence the retiree’s
postretirement employment. For instance, how does the return to the labor force of an important
member of the retiree’s network influence the retiree’s self-perceptions and the likelihood that
the retiree will also reenter the labor force? How do the attitudes of the members of the retiree’s
network toward the centrality of work and the value of leisure affect the retiree’s attitudes about
postretirement employment or different types of postretirement work (e.g., part- vs. full-time)?
Identities
It has been proposed that retirees may experience a loss of identity when they exit the
labor force and this identity loss may be related to whether they engage in postretirement
employment (Armstrong-Stassen et al., 2012). Surprisingly, research on identity loss and
postretirement employment is lacking. It is unknown, for example, how a retiree’s failure to
replace the work identity with nonwork roles may influence his or her engagement in work
after retirement, or how a perceived mismatch between a retiree’s identity and retirement
impacts the retiree’s reentry into the labor force. Likewise, studies have not examined
whether retirees engage in different types of postretirement work (e.g., part-time, seasonal)
in an effort to preserve part of their work identity (i.e., lessen identity loss) or if working
retirees are more likely to again exit the labor force as nonwork identities, including that of a
volunteer, evolve over time. Studying how changes in a retiree’s identities over time may
impact his or her engagement in postretirement employment may increase our understanding
of late-career issues as well as answer scholars’ calls for greater research on identity loss after
role transitions (see Miscenko & Day, 2016, for a discussion). Future research on the rela-
tionship between identity changes and work after retirement may contribute to a broader
understanding of the process of identity loss and individuals’ psychological adjustment to it.
Scholars may also wish to explore the relationship between changing identities and retir-
ees’ reentry into the labor force. For instance, individuals may assume new identities, such as
when individuals become the caregiver to an elderly parent or bedridden spouse, which may
cause them to reevaluate their engagement in postretirement employment. Similarly, how
perceived or anticipated work–nonwork conflict or enrichment (i.e., one domain improves
quality of another) may moderate the relationship between work or nonwork identities and
postretirement employment is an avenue for future study.
Personality
Scholars suggest that a turbulent work environment makes the influence of personality upon
career mobility especially relevant (Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010; Mischel, 1977). In compari-
son to “strong” situations that have a high level of structure and more constraints imposed on
people’s behaviors, today’s “weak” work environment (e.g., high ambiguity, constant flux) places
fewer constraints on the individual, thus permitting personality to have a greater influence on
individuals’ behaviors (Fugate et al., 2004; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Despite the potential influ-
ence personality may have on individuals’ mobility, few studies have examined the relationship
between personality and work after retirement. Of the Big Five personality traits, for example,
only the relationship between openness and engagement in postretirement employment has been
examined (Wöhrmann et al., 2016). Moreover, no research to date has explored how personality
may influence the retiree’s adaptation to postretirement employment and how that adjustment
may subsequently influence the working retiree’s internal and external organizational mobility or
the retiree’s possible reexit out of the labor force. The relationship between personality and post-
retirement work engagement is an area ripe for future study.
Employability and Retirees’ Career Transitions

Engagement in postretirement employment, like other career transitions, is often exam-
ined as an isolated, one-time, static event. However, retirees may be repeatedly moving in
and out of the labor force. Ruhm (1994) reported that almost 56% of the individuals he stud-
ied changed jobs at least twice while working after retirement. Cho et al. (2016) found that
11% to 19% of the retirees in Germany, the United States, and South Korea who engaged in
postretirement employment repeatedly moved in and out of the labor force. Therefore, we
recommend that retirees’ transitions back into the labor force and their transitions between
organizational and occupational boundaries be studied as a dynamic process in which
individuals are repeatedly (re)evaluating their choices and options over time. How feedback
from previous transitions and related outcomes (e.g., adjustment to postretirement work or
retirement) influences current or future transitions should be examined.
By studying the career transitions of retirees as a dynamic process influenced by feed-
back, scholars could consider how the relationship between a retiree’s employability and his
or her reentry into the labor force and movement between employers may be influenced by
his or her changing attitudes (e.g., life and work satisfaction) within the context of a changing
environment (e.g., changes in government pension system, the stock market’s impact on
individual retirement accounts, evolving health care systems). Moreover, moving away from
the static view of retirees’ career transitions could encourage the study of how employability
may evolve over time. For example, longitudinal research could explore how retirees’ transi-
tions in and out of the labor force may influence their future employability and career transi-
tions (e.g., internal and external organizational mobility). Although we consider this extension
of the conceptualization of employability in light of postretirement employment, the consid-
eration of how employability may change over time may also be useful to scholars studying
the employability of other workers in today’s turbulent career landscape.
Theoretical Implications for Work After Retirement

Studies of postretirement work engagement have tended to be atheoretical. There is no over-
arching theoretical framework that guides this research. In an effort to make sense of the increas-
ing number of studies on work after retirement, we used employability as the organizing
framework for this review. We suggest that scholars use the literature on employability as a theo-
retical lens for studying work after retirement. Employability has been applied to the study of
other career transitions (De Vos, Forrier, Van der Heijden, & De Cuyper, 2017; Forrier, Verbruggen,
& De Cuyper, 2015) and could be effectively used to further advance an understanding of postre-
tirement work engagement. The literature on employability may also offer insights into why some
retirees repeatedly move in and out of the labor force as their circumstances change over time.
As previously discussed, we recommended that the conceptualization of employability be fur-
ther developed to recognize nonwork identities in addition to work identities. Much of the theory
and research on careers acknowledges the interaction between the work/nonwork domains and
career options, choices, and behaviors (see Sullivan & Baruch’s [2009] review), including how an
individual’s nonwork identity can enrich or create conflict with his or her work identity (Greenhaus
& Powell, 2006). Research on postretirement employment, for example, may benefit from explor-
ing how work and nonwork identities interact and evolve over time to influence retirees’
mobility.
Overall, the conceptualization of employability offers scholars studying work after retirement
the opportunity to move the literature forward by applying a sound theoretical approach to the
examination of job, organizational, and occupational transitions that occur in late career. Moreover,
integrating the literature on employability with career concepts and theories may further enhance
scholars’ understanding of postretirement employment. For example, models of career transitions
(Nicholson, 1984; Schlossberg, 1981) may offer insights into how retirees’ adjustment to transi-
tions in and out of the labor force influence future career transitions. Characteristics of the retire-
ment transition (e.g., voluntary or involuntary, level of difficulty, time involved), and outcomes
associated with the transition (e.g., changes in stress, life satisfaction) may impact the relationship
between engagement in postretirement employment and employability.
Similarly, integrating research on the boundaryless-career concept and employability may

encourage scholars to not only consider individuals’ actual physical mobility or movement (i.e.,
in and out of the labor force, from one postretirement job or employer to another) but also con-
sider individuals’ psychological mobility, defined as the individual’s capacity to envision a vari-
ety of career options (Sullivan & Arthur, 2006). For instance, a retiree may have low levels of
physical mobility due to structural factors, such as age discrimination preventing him or her from
becoming employed. However, the retiree may have high levels of psychological mobility, per-
mitting him or her to envision alternative paths to employment, such as becoming self-employed.
Examining the different combinations of various levels of physical and psychological mobility
of retirees (e.g., high physical mobility coupled with low psychological mobility, high physical
and psychological mobility) may offer a greater understanding of the relationship of employ-
ability and retirees’ reentry into the labor force and other postretirement career transitions.
Implications for Research on Strategic HR Management

Given growing managerial concerns about predicted labor shortages in today’s changing
career landscape (SHRM, 2015; United Nations, 2017), organizations may consider their ability
to employ retirees as a competitive advantage. The use of retirees, especially in part-time or sea-
sonal positions, may improve organizational flexibility while reducing costs (e.g., potential saving
in health insurance; Guillaume, Sullivan, Wolff, & Forret, 2018; Lautsch, 2002). The hiring of
retirees may also permit the organization to obtain unique sources of knowledge or specialized
skills. For instance, retirees may be willing to work during periods of peak demand, such as
retired accountants who work only during the busy tax season. Retired CEOs or university profes-
sors may be willing to serve as short-term consultants to developing businesses or to coach senior
executives who need to improve their leadership skills.
Despite the potential positives of employing retirees, little is known about how retirees reenter-
ing the labor force may impact organizational HR practices. This review found only a few studies
that examined HR practices as they relate to working after retirement (Adams & Rau, 2004;
Armstrong-Stassen & Staats, 2012; Furunes et al., 2015). A better understanding of what types of
jobs and HR policies (e.g., flexible work schedules, work-from-home options) are most attractive
to retirees may assist in the development of effective HR recruitment strategies, the better design
of jobs to match retirees’ preferences, and ensuring the effective use of training and development
programs. Future research should investigate how individual factors, such as employability, and
situational factors, such as supervisor support, work-unit climate, and firm culture, may moderate
the relationship between specific HR practices (e.g., part-time work hours, increased autonomy)
and retirees’ postretirement employment. Moreover, research is needed to understand how retir-
ees joining organizations may positively or negatively affect the resource allocation to other
groups of workers (e.g., junior employees) as well as how to effectively manage a diverse multi-
generational workforce.
Conclusion
Given increasing, healthier life spans coupled with changes in pension systems, individu-
als may live 25 years or more after they retire. Many organizations, concerned about pre-
dicted labor shortages (Grant, 2016), are proactively taking steps to encourage retirees to
reenter the labor force. Companies, including UPS, Goldman Sachs, Aerospace Corporation,
Bon Secours Health Care Systems, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of America, have already
established formal programs designed to recruit and hire retirees. Although research on post-
retirement employment has grown substantially over the last decade, there is still much to
learn about the career transition of retirement to reemployment.
The purpose of this article was to review and consolidate the quantitative and qualitative
research on postretirement work engagement and establish an agenda for future research. We
hope that scholars across multiple academic fields find this review useful and that it encour-
ages more research in this important area of scholarship.
References
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review,
27: 17-40.
Alderfer, C. P. 1969. An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 4: 142-175.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. 2008. The future of the nursing workforce in the United States: Data,
trends and implications. Retrieved from http://www.aacnnursing.org/News-Information/Nursing-Shortage-
Resources
Arthur, M. 2014. The boundaryless career at 20: Where do we stand, and where can we go? Career Development
International, 19: 627-640.
Bal, P. M., De Jong, S. B., Jansen, P. G., & Bakker, A. B. 2012. Motivating employees to work beyond retirement:
A multi-level study of the role of I-deals and unit climate. Journal of Management Studies, 49: 306-331.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. 1993. The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and corre-
lates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 103-118.
Becker, G. S. 1994. Human capital revisited. In G. S. Becker (Ed.), Human capital: A theoretical and empirical
analysis with special reference to education: 3rd ed., 15-28. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beehr, T. A. 1986. The process of retirement: A review and recommendations for future investigation. Personnel
Psychology, 39: 31-55.
Boudreau, J. W., Jesuthasan, R., & Creelman, D. 2015. Lead the work: Navigating a world beyond employment.
New York: Wiley.
Burkert, C., & Hochfellner, D. 2017. Employment trajectories beyond retirement. Journal of Aging & Social Policy,
29: 143-167.
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burtless, G., & Moffitt, R. A. 1985. The joint choice of retirement age and postretirement hours of work. Journal
of Labor Economics, 3: 209-236.
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. 2005. Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of
Cho, J., Lee, A., & Woo, K. 2016. A comparative study on retirement process in Korea, Germany, and the United
States: Identifying determinants of retirement process. The International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 83: 441-467.
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. 2011. Signaling theory: A review and assessment.
Journal of Management, 37: 39-67.
Cook, S. L. 2013. Redirection: An extension of career during retirement. Gerontologist, 55: 360-373.
Deller, J., Liedtke, P. M., & Maxin, L. M. 2009. Old-age security and silver workers: An empirical survey identifies
challenges for companies, insurers and society. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice,
34: 137-157.
DeSilver, D. 2016. Older Americans are working, and working more, than they used to. Retrieved from http://www
.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/20/more-older-americans-are-working-and-working-more-than-they-used-to/
De Vos, A., Forrier, A., Van der Heijden, B., & De Cuyper, N. 2017. Keep the expert! Occupational expertise,
perceived employability and job search: A study across age groups. Career Development International, 22:
318-332.
de Wind, A., van der Pas, S., Blatter, B. M., & van der Beek, A. J. 2016. A life course perspective on working
beyond retirement—Results from a longitudinal study in the Netherlands. BMC Public Health, 16: 499-511.
Dingemans, E., Henkens, K., & van Solinge, H. V. 2015. Access to bridge employment: Who finds and who does
not find work after retirement? The Gerontologist, 56: 630-640.
Donner, E. M., Sze, G., & Bluth, E. I. 2015. Retirement issues for radiologists: Consensus statement on successful
planning by the commission on human resources of the ACR. Journal of the American College of Radiology,
12: 235-238.
Eagly, A. H. 1987. Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Eddleston, K. A., Veiga, J. F., & Powell, G. N. 2006. Explaining sex differences in managerial career satisfier pref-
erences: The role of gender self-schema. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 437-445.
Feldman, D. C. 1994. The decision to retire early: A review and conceptualization. Academy of Management
Review, 19: 285-311.
Fisher, G. G., Chaffee, D. S., & Sonnega, A. 2016. Retirement timing: A review and recommendations for future
research. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2: 230-261.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. 1990. Postretirement workers in the labor force. Work and Occupations, 17: 355-361.
Forret, M. L. 2018. Networking as a job search and career management behavior. In U. C. Klehe & E. W. J. van
Hooft (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of job loss and job search: 275-291. New York: Oxford University Press.
Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. 2001. Correlates of networking behavior for managerial and professional employ-
ees. Group & Organization Management, 26: 283-311.
Forrier, A., & Sels, L. 2003. The concept employability: A complex mosaic. International Journal of Human
Resources Development and Management, 3: 102-124.
Forrier, A., Verbruggen, M., & De Cuyper, N. 2015. Integrating different notions of employability in a dynamic
chain: The relationship between job transitions, movement capital and perceived employability. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 89: 56-64.
Fugate, M. 2006. New perspectives on employability. In J. Greenhaus & G. Callanan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of career
development: 267-270. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A. J. 2008. A dispositional approach to employability: Development of a measure and test
of implications for employee reactions to organizational change. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. 2004. Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and
applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65: 14-38.
Gonzales, E., Lee, Y., & Brown, C. 2017. Back to work? Not everyone. Examining the longitudinal relationships between
informal caregiving and paid work after formal retirement. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 72: 532-539.
Grant, R. 2016, February 3. The US is running out of nurses. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/health/
archive/2016/02/nursing-shortage/459741/
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2006. When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment.
Academy of Management Review, 31: 72-92.
Greenwald, L., Copeland, C., & VanDerhei, J. 2017. The 2017 Retirement Confidence Survey: Many workers lack
retirement confidence and feel stressed about retirement preparations (Issue Brief No. 431). Washington, DC:
Employee Benefit Research Institute. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2941583
Guillaume, P., Sullivan, S.E., Wolff, H., & Forret, M. 2018. Are there major differences in the attitudes and service
quality of standard and seasonal employees? An empirical examination and implications for practice. Human
Resource Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21929
Hall, D. T. 2004. The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65: 1-13.
Hansson, R. O., Dekoekkoek, P. D., Neece, W. M., & Patterson, D. W. 1997. Successful aging at work: Annual review,
1992-1996: The older worker and transitions to retirement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51: 202-233.
Holden, K. C. 1988. Physically demanding occupations, health, and work after retirement: Findings from the New
Beneficiary Survey. Social Security Bulletin, 51: 3-15.
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. 1995. An empirical investigation of the predictors of
executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48: 485-519.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. 1999. The big five personality traits, general mental
ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52: 621-652.
Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. 2001. Job search and employment: A personality–motivational
analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 837-855.
Kanter, R. M. 1977. Work and family in the United States: A critical review and agenda for research and policy.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Karasek, R., III, & Bryant, P. 2012. Signaling theory: Past, present, and future. Academy of Strategic Management
Journal, 11: 91-99.
Kojola, E., & Moen, P. 2016. No more lock-step retirement: Boomers’ shifting meanings of work and retirement.
Journal of Aging Studies, 36: 59-70.
Konrad, A., Ritchie, J., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. 2000. Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126: 593-641.
Kovalenko, M., & Mortelmans, D. 2016. Contextualizing employability: Do boundaries of self-directedness vary in
different labor market groups? Career Development International, 21: 498-517.
Ladge, J. J., Clair, J. A., & Greenberg, D. 2012. Cross-domain identity transition during liminal periods: Constructing
multiple selves as professional and mother during pregnancy. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 1449-1471.
Lautsch, B. A. 2002. Uncovering and explaining variance in the features and outcomes of contingent work. ILR
Review, 56: 23-43.
Lim, D. H., Oh, E., Ju, B., & Kim, H. N. 2018. Mediating role of career coaching on job-search behavior of
older generations. International Journal of Aging and Human Development. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0091415017743009
Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., & Vaughn, J. C. 1981. Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational
status attainment. American Sociological Review, 46: 393-405.
London, M. 1983. Toward a theory of career motivation. Academy of Management Review, 8: 620-630.
London, M. 1993. Relationships between career motivation, empowerment and support for career development.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66: 55-69.
Lux, T., & Scherger, S. 2017. By the sweat of their brow? The effects of starting work again after pension age on
life satisfaction in Germany and the United Kingdom. Ageing & Society, 37: 295-324.
Lytle, M. C., Clancy, M. E., Foley, P. F., & Cotter, E. W. 2015. Current trends in retirement: Implications for career
counseling and vocational psychology. Journal of Career Development, 42: 170-184.
Maestas, N. 2010. Back to work expectations and realizations of work after retirement. Journal of Human Resources,
45: 718-748.
Mainiero, L. A., & Sullivan, S. E. 2006. The opt out revolt: Why people are leaving companies to create kaleido-
scope careers. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black.
McAdams, D. 1999. Personal narratives and the life story. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research: 478-500. New York: Guilford Press.
McAdams, D. P., de St. Aubin, E., & Logan, R. L. 1993. Generativity among young, midlife, and older adults.
Psychology and Aging, 8: 221-230.
McArdle, S., Waters, L., Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. T. 2007. Employability during unemployment: Adaptability,
career identity and human and social capital. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71: 247-264.
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. 2010. A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational
sciences. Journal of Management, 36: 121-140.
Miscenko, D., & Day, D. V. 2016. Identity and identification at work. Organizational Psychology Review, 6:
215-247.
Mischel, W. 1977. The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the
crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology: 333-352. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. 1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations,
dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102: 246-268.
Moen, P., & Flood, S. 2013. Limited engagements? Women’s and men’s work/volunteer time in the encore life
course stage. Social Problems, 60: 206-233.
Nauta, A., Vianen, A., Heijden, B., Dam, K., & Willemsen, M. 2009. Understanding the factors that promote
employability orientation: The impact of employability culture, career satisfaction, and role breadth self-effi-
cacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82: 233-251.
Nicholson, N. 1984. A theory of career transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 172-191.
Oude Mulders, J., Henkens, K., & Schippers, J. 2017. European top managers’ age-related workplace norms and
their organizations’ recruitment and retention practices regarding older workers. Gerontologist, 57: 857-866.
Patrickson, M., & Ranzijn, R. 2003. Employability of older workers. Equal Opportunities International, 22: 50-63.
Pattersson, J. 2014. Instead of bowling alone? Unretirement of pensioners in Sweden. International Journal of
Manpower, 35(7): 1016-1037.
Pleau, R. L. 2010. Gender differences in postretirement employment. Research on Aging, 32: 267-303.
Rad, E. H., Rashidian, A., Arab, M., & Souri, A. 2017. The effect of catastrophic health expenditure on work after
retirement. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 84: 313-323.
Ramarajan, L., & Reid, E. 2013. Shattering the myth of separate worlds: Negotiating nonwork identities at work.
Academy of Management Review, 38: 621-644.
Ramarajan, L. 2014. Past, present and future research on multiple identities: Toward an intrapersonal network
approach. Academy of Management Annals, 8: 589-659.
Ruhm, C. J. 1990. Bridge jobs and partial retirement. Journal of Labor Economics, 8: 482-501.
Saba, T., & Guerin, G. 2005. Extending employment beyond retirement age: The case of health care managers in
Quebec. Public Personnel Administration, 34: 195-214.
Schlossberg, N. K. 1981. A model for analyzing human adaptation to transition. Counseling Psychologist, 9: 2-18.
Singh, G., & DeNoble, A. 2003. Early retirees as the next generation of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 27: 207-226.
Society for Human Resource Management. 2015. Engaging and integrating a global workforce. Retrieved from
http://futurehrtrends.eiu.com/report-2015/executive-summary/
Spence, M. 1973. Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87: 355-374.
Statistics Canada. 2014. Employment transitions among older workers leaving long-term jobs. Retrieved from
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2014355-eng.htm
Sullivan, S. E. 1999. The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 25:
457-484.
Sullivan, S. E., & Arthur, M. B. 2006. The evolution of the boundaryless career concept: Examining physical and
psychological mobility. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69: 19-29.
Sullivan, S. E., & Baruch, Y. 2009. Advances in career theory and research: A critical review and agenda for future
exploration. Journal of Management, 35: 1542-1571.
Tempest, S., & Coupland, C. 2017. Lost in time and space: Temporal and spatial challenges facing older workers in
a global economy from a career capital perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
28: 2159-2183.
Thijssen, J. G., Van der Heijden, B. I., & Rocco, T. S. 2008. Toward the employability—link model: Current
employment transition to future employment perspectives. Human Resource Development Review, 7: 165-183.
Toughill, E., Mason, D. J., Beck, T. L., & Christopher, M. A. 1993. Health, income, and postretirement employment
of older adults. Public Health Nursing, 10: 100-107.
Trusty, J., Allen, D. G., & Fabian, F. 2018. Hunting while working: An expanded model of employed job search.
Human Resource Management Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.12.001
United Nations. 2017. United Nation’s world population prospects, 2017 revision. New York: DESA.
van der Heijde, C. M., & van der Heijden, B. 2006. A competence-based and multidimensional operationalization
and measurement of employability. Human Resource Management Journal, 45: 449-476.
Vanhercke, D., De Cuyper, N., Peeters, E., & De Witte, H. 2014. Defining perceived employability: A psychologi-
cal approach. Personnel Review, 43: 592-605.
Wang, M., & Shi, J. 2014. Psychological research on retirement. Annual Review of Psychology, 65: 209-233.
Wang, M., & Shultz, K. S. 2010. Employee retirement: A review and recommendations for future investigation.
Journal of Management, 36: 172-206.
Welbourne, T. M., & Paterson, T. A. 2016. Advancing a richer view of identity at work: The role-based identity
scale. Personnel Psychology, 70: 315-356.
Williams, S., Dodd, L. J., Steele, C., & Randall, R. 2016. A systematic review of current understandings of employ-
ability. Journal of Education and Work, 29: 877-901.
Wittekind, A. 2007. Employability: An empirical analysis of its antecedents and its relevance for employees in
Switzerland. Doctoral dissertation, ETH, Zurich.
Wittekind, A., Raeder, S., & Grote, G. 2010. A longitudinal study of determinants of perceived employability.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 566-586.
Wöhrmann, A. M., Deller, J., & Wang, M. 2014. Postretirement career planning: Testing a model based on social
cognitive career theory. Journal of Career Development, 41: 363-381.
Yang, Y. 2011. No way out but working? Income dynamics of young retirees in Korea. Ageing & Society, 31: 265-
287.

Employment After Retirement: A Review and Framework For Future Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Employment After Retirement: A Review and Framework For Future Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

810411

Employment After Retirement: A Review and

Keywords: postretirement employment; employability; retirement; work transition; career

Article Search Procedure

*Management encompasses organizational behavior and applied psychology.

employment but instead used postretirement employment as a predictor of life satisfaction.

Demographics as Signals of Human Capital

Proactivity and Openness

Other Personality Variables

Directions for Future Research

Employability and Retirees’ Career Transitions

Theoretical Implications for Work After Retirement

Similarly, integrating research on the boundaryless-career concept and employability may

Implications for Research on Strategic HR Management

You might also like