Sage Reference

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

For the most optimal reading experience we recommend using our website.
A free-to-view version of this content is available by clicking on this link, which
includes an easy-to-navigate-and-search-entry, and may also include videos,
embedded datasets, downloadable datasets, interactive questions, audio
content, and downloadable tables and resources.

Author: Hannes Zacher

Pub. Date: 2021
Product: Sage Reference
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529757187
Keywords: wellbeing
Disciplines: Business & Management, Organization Studies, Organizational Behavior, Organizational
Culture, Stress in Organizations
Access Date: March 3, 2024
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications Ltd
City: 55 City Road
Online ISBN: 9781529757187

© 2021 SAGE Publications Ltd All Rights Reserved.

Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

Wellbeing and Age in Organizational Life

Hannes Zacher

Introduction

The goal of this chapter is to review and discuss theory, empirical research, and organizational practice with
regard to relationships between individuals’ chronological age and different dimensions of occupational well-
being from a lifespan developmental perspective. In addition, various person-related and contextual mecha-
nisms and boundary conditions of these associations will be elaborated. Consistent with the definition pro-
posed by the World Health Organization (1948), wellbeing encompasses physical, mental, and social dimen-
sions and describes not simply the absence of physical illness. Accordingly, this chapter addresses how dif-
ferent indicators of objective and subjective physical health and wellbeing as well as psychological wellbeing
relate to age in the work context and organizational life. Due to demographic changes, the populations and
workforces in most developed countries (e.g., Germany, Italy, UK, United States) and many developing coun-
tries (e.g., Brazil, China, India) are ageing and becoming more age diverse (Hertel and Zacher, 2018). Due to
economic changes, increased healthy life expectancy, and more options for delayed and more flexible retire-
ment entries, it is expected that a growing number of individuals will continue to work in their late 60s, 70s,
and even 80s over the coming decades. At the same time, work is increasingly carried out in teams com-
posed of members from several different age groups (Parry and McCarthy, 2017). Accordingly, it is important
to understand how, why, and when occupational wellbeing differs between various age groups and changes
across the working lifespan.

Whereas chronological age refers to the time an individual has lived since birth, ageing is a temporal process
that goes along with changes (i.e., growth, decline, maintenance) in different physiological and psychological
characteristics (Schwall, 2012). The vast majority of studies in work and organizational psychology on age
and occupational wellbeing is cross-sectional and, thus, examines age-related differences between groups
of younger, middle-aged, and older employees, which cannot simply be interpreted as age-related changes
within ageing employees over time (Zacher, 2015). In contrast, due to their time- and cost-intensive nature,
there are currently only very few long-term longitudinal studies on age and occupational wellbeing that allow
conclusions about the ageing process (e.g., Riza et al., 2018). The lifespan developmental perspective is a

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 2 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

meta-theoretical framework that conceives human development and ageing (ontogenesis) as a continuous,
multidimensional, and multidirectional process driven by both biological and cultural influences, as well as
individual action regulation and adaptation to changing environments (Baltes, 1987; Zacher et al., 2019). A
complementary approach to the lifespan development perspective is the life course perspective, which focus-
es on the interplay between structure (e.g., institutions, social context) and individual agency in influencing
development but, compared to the lifespan perspective, places a stronger emphasis on the former than the
latter (Diewald and Mayer, 2009). The life course perspective originated in the field of sociology and is, there-
fore, primarily concerned with predicting decisions of groups of individuals in navigating lives and careers. In
contrast, the lifespan developmental perspective originated in the field of psychology and is, therefore, gen-
erally better suited to examine the role of age for the individual experience of wellbeing, in work and organi-
zational life and beyond. However, an integration of both perspectives can be useful to conceptualize higher-
level predictors of occupational wellbeing, such as team, organizational, and institutional factors (Settersten,
2017; Zacher and Froidevaux, 2021).

In the next section, several relevant theories based on the lifespan developmental perspective are introduced,
including the model of selection, optimization, and compensation; socioemotional selectivity theory; the
strength and vulnerability integration model; and the motivational theory of lifespan development. These psy-
chological lifespan theories address links between age and especially individual motivation and emotional
regulation and are, therefore, useful to understand changes in occupational wellbeing across the lifespan
(Rudolph, 2016; Scheibe and Zacher, 2013; Schmitt and Bathen, 2015). Subsequently, results of several
meta-analyses and primary empirical studies on age and occupational wellbeing are summarized. It is impor-
tant to note that the lifespan theories introduced in this chapter were developed in Western countries, partic-
ularly the United States and Germany. In addition, most corresponding empirical research on age and well-
being was, with few exceptions (Fung et al., 1999), carried out in Western countries. Thus, generalizations
to other cultural and institutional contexts can only be made with caution (Rudolph et al., 2018a; Tomlinson
et al., 2018). The chapter concludes by outlining a number of emerging directions in this area of research as
well as suggestions for future theory development and empirical research regarding the role of age for occu-
pational wellbeing. In addition, based on theories and research reviewed in the chapter, practical implications
for developing workers’ wellbeing across longer periods of time in organizational life are discussed.

Theoretical Frameworks on Age and Occupational Wellbe-

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 3 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

ing

The lifespan developmental perspective superseded traditional stage-based theories of development, which
typically proposed several age-based, distinct, and normative stages with corresponding developmental tasks
or conflicts that had to be resolved (e.g., generativity vs stagnation; Erikson, 1950; Levinson, 1986). In con-
trast, the lifespan perspective conceives development as a continuous and more flexible process from con-
ception to death. Baltes (1987) developed a set of seven meta-theoretical propositions about lifespan devel-
opment. First, the lifespan perspective conceives development as a lifelong process and argues that no age
period is superior to others. Second, development is multidirectional within and across domains of functioning
and experience, including increases, decreases, and maintenance in physical and psychological wellbeing.
Third, development always involves the joint occurrence of gains and losses in functioning and experiences,
and losses increasingly outweigh gains with age, and especially in very old age. Fourth, development is modi-
fiable within persons (i.e., intraindividual plasticity), suggesting that person-related and contextual factors can
lead to changed trajectories in wellbeing at any point of the lifespan. Fifth, development is historically, cultur-
ally, and socially embedded (i.e., principle of contextualism), meaning that interactions between person and
context have to be taken into account. Sixth, development depends on the interplay of normative age-grad-
ed (e.g., decline in physical strength), normative history-graded (e.g., retirement entry), and non-normative
influences (e.g., accidents, lottery wins). Finally, Baltes (1987) proposed that lifespan development should
be studied from multiple scientific perspectives, including psychology, medicine, sociology, anthropology, and
other fields. The lifespan perspective generally conceives individual development as a process of initiating
changes in one's environment and developmental path, as well as the adaptation to changes in the environ-
ment and in individual functioning (Baltes, 1997; Baltes et al., 1980).

While there is no specific lifespan developmental theory of age-related changes in physical functioning and
objective physical wellbeing, the lifespan perspective generally acknowledges that physical health can decline
with age, across the working lifespan (i.e., typically between the late teens and mid 60s), but particularly in old
age (i.e., approximately 65 years and older) and very old age (i.e., approximately 85 years and older; Baltes
and Smith, 2003). Specifically, the process of ageing involves losses in different physiological and physical
abilities, including sensory, muscle, cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, and immune system functions,
which can, in turn, impact on workplace health and safety outcomes such as injuries and accidents (Jex et
al., 2007; Maertens et al., 2012). Importantly, however, the lifespan developmental perspective emphasizes
that there is a great deal of interindividual and intraindividual variability in physical health-related trajectories

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 4 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

with age. For instance, both organizational interventions (e.g., job design, health promotion) and individual
compensatory behaviours (e.g., using tools) can weaken the association between age-related changes and
occupational health outcomes. In addition, cognitive epidemiology research demonstrates that age-related
changes in cognitive functioning (e.g., information processing, problem solving) are associated with changes
in health-related outcomes and even mortality (Salthouse, 2012).

Based on the meta-theoretical lifespan perspective, several more specific lifespan theories have been devel-
oped that are frequently used in research on work and ageing (Rudolph, 2016) and, in particular, research
on age and occupational health and wellbeing (Scheibe and Zacher, 2013). First, the model of selection, opti-
mization, and compensation proposes that individuals adapt to age-related changes in personal or contextual
resources and proactively shape their own development by changing their goals either voluntarily or due to
losses (i.e., elective and loss-based selection), by increasing or refining their personal investments into goal
pursuit (i.e., optimization), and by using alternative goal-relevant means if previous means for goal achieve-
ment are no longer available (i.e., compensation; Baltes and Baltes, 1990). According to the model, individ-
uals ‘age successfully’ and, in particular, are able to maintain or improve their wellbeing with increasing age
when they adapt to individual and environmental changes by making use of these action regulation strate-
gies in an ‘orchestrated’ or combined way (Freund and Baltes, 2000). The model of selection, optimization,
and compensation has also been applied in research on emotion regulation, based on the idea that individ-
ual select and optimize emotion regulation strategies depend on the availability of resources, including per-
sonal capabilities and environmental affordances (Opitz et al., 2012; Urry and Gross, 2010). More specifical-
ly, the researchers suggested that the availability of internal and external resources predicts the use of five
emotion regulation strategies (i.e., situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive
changes, response modulation) which, in turn, may predict wellbeing.

Second, socioemotional selectivity theory attempts to explain age-related differences and changes in social
and emotional goals as well as changing goal priorities (Carstensen et al., 1999; Carstensen, 2006). In con-
trast to the model of selection, optimization, and compensation, the explanatory mechanisms for such age-
related differences and changes in goals and goal priorities are not changes in individual or contextual re-
sources, but the perception of remaining time left in life, which has been termed future time perspective
(Lang and Carstensen, 2002). Specifically, when people perceive their future time as unlimited (i.e., typical-
ly younger adults), they prioritize goals related to knowledge acquisition and expansion of social networks,
as these represent activities to maximize future gains. In contrast, when people perceive their future time as
limited (i.e., typically older adults), goals related to positive emotions, wellbeing, and meaningfulness are pri-

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 5 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

oritized in order to maximize momentary experiences in the present. Thus, similar to rational choice models,
socioemotional selectivity theory suggests that people change their goals with age based on changes in fu-
ture time perspective to maximize their returns of investments in their perceived available future time. The
idea that time perspective changes with age and, in turn, influences important work outcomes, including occu-
pational wellbeing, has been adapted to the work context (i.e., ‘occupational future time perspective'; Zacher
and Frese, 2009).

Third, the strength and vulnerability integration model represents an extension of socioemotional selectivity
theory (Charles, 2010). The model focuses on age-related strengths and weaknesses in emotion regulation,
which in turn impacts on emotional experiences and wellbeing. In addition to future time perspective, the mod-
el considers age-related increases in life experience, particularly with regard to emotion regulation and inter-
personal skills (Blanchard-Fields, 2007), as well as age-related increases in physiological vulnerabilities (e.g.,
cardiovascular disease, neurological and hormonal dysfunctions) as explanatory mechanisms. The strength
and vulnerability integration model proposes that older people tend to avoid stressors and negative experi-
ences (i.e., situation selection) and generally cope better with low levels of stressors as compared to younger
people (Charles and Luong, 2013). In contrast, due to their physiological vulnerabilities and decreased flex-
ibility in biological systems, older people possess lower capacities to deal with high and chronic levels of
stressors and corresponding physiological arousal. In other words, their emotion regulation is less effective
in these situations as compared to younger people. Thus, older adults should also have more difficulties with
regard to intense and chronic, as compared to mild, stressors in organizational life, with respective conse-
quences for their occupational wellbeing.

Finally, the motivational theory of lifespan development (similar to its predecessor, the lifespan theory of con-
trol; Heckhausen and Schulz, 1995) proposes that successful ageing requires the optimal use of two com-
plementary action regulation strategies, that is, primary and secondary control strategies (Heckhausen et al.,
2010). Whereas primary control strategies involve actions to proactively change the environment to fulfil one's
personal needs, secondary control strategies entail adapting the self, including one's ways of thinking and
feeling, to changes in the environment in order to maintain, increase, or compensate for existing (low) levels
of primary control. The theory assumes that the relationship between age and primary control takes an in-
verted U-shape pattern, with increases from birth to younger adulthood, a peak in middle age, and a decline
during later adulthood. In contrast, secondary control is assumed to increase linearly across the lifespan to
support primary control striving.

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 6 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

Based on these lifespan theories, researchers working in the area of work and ageing have developed more
specific theorizing on the role of age for occupational health and wellbeing. For example, Scheibe and Zach-
er (2013) presented a lifespan model of emotion regulation, stress, and occupational wellbeing. According to
their model, age is associated with (a) what kinds of affective work events people encounter and how often
(i.e., emotional event exposure); (b) the appraisal of and initial emotional response to affective work events
(i.e., emotion generation); and (c) the management of emotions and coping with affective work events (i.e.,
emotion regulation). The researchers proposed that changes in employees’ life contexts (e.g., work, family,
leisure) mediate the relationships between age and age-related factors on the one hand and the occurrence
of affective work events on the other. More specifically, it was assumed that middle-aged (or mid-career) work-
ers, who are approximately between 35 and 50 years old, experience higher levels of strain and lower levels
of occupational wellbeing due to increased work–life conflict and increased work responsibilities (Huffman et
al., 2013; Zacher et al., 2014b). Furthermore, the model suggests that the relationship between age and the
emotional response to affective work events is mediated by emotion generation via attention and appraisal
processes, depending on the nature of the affective work events encountered. The researchers assume that,
with increasing age, employees are less strongly affected by interpersonal stressors and more strongly affect-
ed by non-interpersonal stressors. Moreover, consistent with the strength and vulnerability integration model,
the model suggests that when stressful events have a high emotion-regulatory load (i.e., high intensity, du-
ration, chronicity, or complexity), older workers are equally or more strongly affected than younger workers,
independent of event type. Finally, the model proposes that the relationship between age and emotional re-
sponses (i.e., occupational strain, wellbeing) is mediated by emotion regulation. In particular, it is assumed
that older adults are more motivated than younger adults to avoid or down-regulate negative and/or high-
arousal affect associated with certain affective work events. Moreover, older employees should be more ef-
fective and efficient in avoiding or down-regulating negative and/or high-arousal affect resulting from affective
work events, especially when the occupational context supports the free choice of regulatory strategies.

Another line of research that is based on the lifespan developmental perspective aims to explain associations
between age and occupational wellbeing using the notion of successful ageing at work (Zacher, 2015; Zacher
and Schmitt, 2016). Various subjective and objective work outcomes (e.g., job attitudes, performance, occu-
pational wellbeing) can be conceived as indicators of successful ageing at work. With respect to occupational
wellbeing, successful ageing entails that workers experience higher than average levels in wellbeing with in-
creasing age. For instance, if the average age-related trend in an occupational wellbeing outcome is decline,
then maintenance in wellbeing with age would be considered successful ageing at work. In contrast, if the

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 7 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

average trend is positive, higher than average growth in wellbeing would constitute successful ageing. Both
individual resources, including personality characteristics and self-regulation skills, and environmental affor-
dances, such as work characteristics and organizational climate, can contribute to successful ageing at work
(Kooij et al., 2020; Zacher and Rudolph, 2017).

Finally, also based on the lifespan developmental perspective, researchers have proposed a person–environ-
ment fit model of age, occupational strain, and wellbeing (Feldman and Vogel, 2009; Rauvola et al., 2020;
Zacher et al., 2014a). The model suggests that age can affect the match between individual abilities and
needs on the one hand, and work-related demands and supplies on the other hand. For instance, age-re-
lated changes in cognitive abilities and personality may lead to increases or decreases in employees’ per-
son–job demands–abilities fit or their needs–supplies fit over time (Zacher et al., 2014a). Moreover, accord-
ing to the model, age can moderate the relationship between objective person–environment fit and subjec-
tive person–environment fit, as well as the relationships between both forms of person–environment fit and
occupational strain and wellbeing. For example, the model suggests that the positive relationship between
objective and subjective person–job fit is stronger for younger as compared to older employees because,
based on socioemotional selectivity theory, older employees have a stronger motivation to perceive their fit as
favourable. Similarly, the effects of person–group fit and occupational wellbeing are expected to be stronger
for older as compared to younger employees (Zacher et al., 2014a).

In summary, several theories based on the lifespan developmental perspective exist that can be applied to
gain a better understanding of relationships between employee age and different indicators of occupational
wellbeing. Moreover, several conceptual models on emotion regulation, successful ageing, and person–en-
vironment fit in the work context have been proposed that specifically aim to explain age-related differences
and changes in occupational wellbeing. In the next section, empirical research on relationships between age
and occupational wellbeing based on these theoretical frameworks is reviewed and discussed.

Empirical Research on Relationships between Age and

Occupational Wellbeing

Over the past decades, several primary empirical studies and meta-analyses have examined associations be-
tween chronological age and occupational wellbeing. With regard to physical health, it is commonly assumed

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 8 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

that older workers have lower levels of health and wellbeing than younger workers (McCarthy et al., 2019;
Posthuma and Campion, 2009). However, a meta-analysis by Ng and Feldman (2013) only partially support-
ed such age stereotypes. Based on accumulated results of between four and 59 studies, the researchers
showed that age was weakly to moderately related to objective measures of physical ill-health, including blood
pressure (ρ = 0.34), cholesterol level (ρ = 0.20), and body mass index (ρ = 0.21), as well as to self-report-
ed measures of insomnia (ρ = 0.12), and muscle pain (ρ = 0.14). In contrast, age was largely unrelated to
overall subjective physical health (ρ = 0.00), somatic and psychosomatic complaints (ρs = 0.02 and 0.03, re-
spectively), depression (ρ = –0.03), and anxiety (ρ = –0.01), and weakly negatively related to poor mental
health (ρ = –0.05), fatigue (ρ = –0.10), negative mood (ρ = –0.10), anger (ρ = –0.15), and irritation (ρ = –0.09).
Thus, while age appears to be negatively related to objective physical health and wellbeing, older workers re-
port somewhat higher levels with regard to certain indicators of subjective health and wellbeing than younger
workers.

Another meta-analysis examined associations between the use of selection, optimization, and compensation
strategies and various work-related outcomes, including job performance and occupational wellbeing (Moghi-
mi et al., 2017). Results showed that strategy use was not only positively related to both self-reported (ρ =
0.23) and non-self-reported job performance (ρ = 0.21), but also to job satisfaction (ρ = 0.25) and job en-
gagement (ρ = 0.38) as indicators of occupational wellbeing. However, unexpectedly, strategy use was not
significantly related to job strain (ρ = 0.01), an indicator of negative occupational wellbeing. In addition, the
researchers conducted a systematic review of the literature on the use of selection, optimization, and com-
pensation strategies in the work context and reported that very few studies had examined the use of selection,
optimization, and compensation strategies as a mediator or moderator of links between age and occupational
wellbeing.

Based on socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen et al., 1999), which suggests that older as compared
to younger workers prioritize positive emotional experiences and meaningfulness, Ng and Feldman (2010)
meta-analytically examined bivariate associations between age and 35 work-related attitudes and occupa-
tional wellbeing indicators. They showed that age is generally positively, and weakly to moderately, related to
favourable attitudes toward work tasks (e.g., satisfaction with work itself), colleagues and supervisors (e.g.,
interpersonal trust), and the organization (e.g., commitment). More specifically, and with regard to occupa-
tional wellbeing, the researchers found positive relationships between age and overall job satisfaction (ρ =
0.18), job involvement (ρ = 0.25), affective commitment (ρ = 0.24), and organizational identification (ρ = 0.20).
Furthermore, they found negative relationships between age and perceptions of role ambiguity (ρ = –0.15),

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 9 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

role conflict (ρ = –0.14), and role overload (ρ = –0.30), as well as the burnout syndrome dimensions emotion-
al exhaustion (ρ = –0.08), depersonalization (ρ = –0.18), and reduced personal accomplishment (ρ = –0.14).
Importantly, most of these associations remained stable when organizational tenure was controlled, and the
researchers did not find much evidence for curvilinear relationships between age and these occupational
wellbeing outcomes. Another meta-analysis did not find a significant overall association between age and
a more proximal indicator of work-related strain called irritation (Rauschenbach et al., 2013). However, this
meta-analysis found a weak positive relationship between age and strain in jobs with high physical demands
(e.g., production or construction work), and a reversed U-shaped relationship between age and strain in social
jobs (e.g., nurses or teachers), with middle-aged workers reporting the highest levels of strain. Importantly,
the findings of these meta-analyses have to be interpreted with some caution, as they are based on mostly
cross-sectional data, raising potential concerns regarding the ‘healthy worker effect'. That is, workers with low
wellbeing may have a higher likelihood of dropping out of the workforce (and out of empirical studies) than
workers with higher wellbeing. Moreover, the age ranges included suggest that workers aged 60 years and
older are underrepresented in the studies included in these meta-analyses.

While researchers have conceptually addressed person-related (e.g., emotion regulation and coping) and
contextual mechanisms (e.g., work events, life context) linking age with occupational health and wellbeing
outcomes (Scheibe and Zacher, 2013), no systematic review and very little empirical evidence from primary
studies on such mechanisms exists (Doerwald et al., 2016; Zacher and Froidevaux, 2021). For example, re-
search based on the lifespan theory of control showed that older workers use more active problem-focused
coping (but not emotion-focused coping) and, thus, experience less strain than younger workers (Hertel et
al., 2015). Another study explored contextual work-related mechanisms to explain lower levels in occupa-
tional wellbeing (i.e., lower job satisfaction, higher emotional exhaustion) among mid-career workers in the
construction industry, as compared to wellbeing at younger and older ages (Zacher et al., 2014b). The re-
searchers found that time pressure was highest and co-worker social support lowest among middle-aged
workers compared to younger and older workers, which explained the decrease in occupational wellbeing in
mid-career. The study did not find an association between age and work–family conflict, which may not be
surprising given that the sample was predominantly male.

With regard to interactive effects of age with work characteristics on occupational wellbeing, a number of re-
view articles have found mixed evidence (Bal et al., 2008; Mühlenbrock and Hüffmeier, 2020; Ng and Feld-
man, 2015; Zacher and Schmitt, 2016). A meta-analysis found that age moderated the negative associations
of psychological contract breach with trust, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Bal et al., 2008).

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 10 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

While the relationships of contract breach with trust and organizational commitment were stronger for younger
compared to older employees, the relationship between contract breach and job satisfaction was unexpected-
ly stronger for older compared to younger employees. In their review, Zacher and Schmitt (2016) concluded
that ‘the patterns of interaction effects of work characteristics and age on occupational well-being are diverse
and complex; it appears that the interaction patterns depend not only on the specific work characteristics,
but also on the specific occupational well-being indicators under consideration’ (2016: 3). This conclusion is
mirrored by the findings of a meta-analysis on interactive effects of age and job autonomy on different work
outcomes, including job performance and occupational wellbeing (Ng and Feldman, 2015). Based on socioe-
motional selectivity theory, the researchers argued that older workers would experience job autonomy more
positively than younger workers. Consistently, results showed that the negative relationship between job au-
tonomy and emotional exhaustion was stronger for older workers than for younger workers. The authors sug-
gested that older workers might benefit more from high levels of job autonomy because they may have greater
family responsibilities (e.g., eldercare). In contrast, the meta-analysis found that the relationships of job au-
tonomy with job satisfaction, affective commitment, work engagement, job stress, and poor mental health
were stronger for younger workers compared to older workers. The authors suggested that, also based on
socioemotional selectivity theory, younger workers may react more positively to job autonomy because they
place greater priority on knowledge acquisition, attainment of career goals, and impressing others. A recent
systematic review on age, job characteristics, and health outcomes by Mühlenbrock and Hüffmeier (2020)
suggested that there is some evidence that effects of age on health depend on age-relevant work demands
(e.g., information processing vs knowledge), job autonomy, and meaningful work, with high levels of knowl-
edge demands, meaningful work, and job autonomy benefitting older workers. However, the researchers also
noted the general lack of studies and a relatively high number of non-significant interactions.

Several recent primary studies examined interactive effects of age and work characteristics on occupational
wellbeing (see also Zacher and Froidevaux, 2021). For example, a study found that the association between
age and work engagement was positive when task significance, interaction outside of one's organization, or
both job characteristics were high, whereas the relationship was non-significant when both characteristics
were low (Gostautaite and Buciuniene, 2015). Another study integrated the lifespan perspective with the job
demands–resources model to gain a better understanding of the role of age for associations between job
demands and job resources with work engagement and burnout (Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya, 2018). Eco-
nomic problems and information and communication technology demands were positively related to burnout
among younger employees, whereas caregiving demands and multicultural work demands were positively

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 11 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

related to burnout and negatively related to work engagement among middle-aged and older employees. No
age-differential effects were found for personal and job resources. Furthermore, a study examined age as
a moderator of effects of job resources (i.e., skill variety, leader–member exchange, procedural fairness) on
perceived work-related stress (Yaldiz et al., 2018). When these resources were high, both younger and older
workers experienced low levels of stress. In contrast, when resources were low, older workers experienced
more stress than younger workers. Finally, based on person–environment fit theory, job design theory, and
lifespan theories (i.e., fluid and crystallized intelligence; model of selection, optimization, and compensation;
socioemotional selectivity theory), a qualitative study with professional ballet dancers suggested that the in-
terplay between individual factors (i.e., abilities, needs, strategies) and contextual factors (i.e., demands, or-
ganizational resources) plays an important role for psychological adjustment and wellbeing with increasing
age (Rodrigues et al., 2020).

In summary, a number of meta-analyses on age and various indicators of occupational wellbeing have not
supported the stereotype of the generally less healthy older workers. In contrast, and consistent with the
lifespan perspective, there appear to be both gains and losses in occupational wellbeing with age. Where-
as objective indicators of physical ill-health, such as blood pressure and cholesterol level, increase with age,
subjective physical and mental health and wellbeing tend to remain stable or increase with age. Even though
relatively few studies on age-related mechanisms and boundary conditions exist, it seems as if both job char-
acteristics and workers’ action regulation strategies, as well as their combination, may contribute to higher
levels of occupational wellbeing among older as compared to younger workers. In the final section of this
chapter, implications of these findings for theory development as well as future research and practice are
elaborated.

Implications for Theory Development, Research, and Prac-

tice

The present review and discussion of the lifespan developmental perspective and associated lifespan the-
ories and conceptual models suggests several directions for future theory development regarding links be-
tween age and occupational wellbeing. First, there is a need for greater integration of specific lifespan the-
ories and related constructs (Haase et al., 2013). The model of selection, optimization, and compensation,
socioemotional selectivity theory, and the model of strength and vulnerability integration, as well as the moti-

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 12 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

vational theory of lifespan development, each contribute toward a better understanding of how, why, and when
occupational wellbeing may differ across age groups or change with age. However, whereas some of these
lifespan theories focus on physiological declines and perceptions of future time left in life, others emphasize
people's action regulation, especially goal setting and pursuit, as central mechanisms. An integration of these
theoretical frameworks could help to further understand why and under which conditions some dimensions of
occupational wellbeing decrease with age, whereas others are maintained or increase with age. It is also nec-
essary to better integrate these motivational lifespan theories (Rudolph, 2016) with theorizing and research
on changes in functioning in various physiological and cognitive domains (Ackerman and Kanfer, 2020; Fisher
et al., 2017; Salthouse, 2012). Moreover, with few exceptions (Heckhausen et al., 2010), most lifespan theo-
ries focus exclusively on intraindividual psychological processes and neglect proximal (e.g., immediate work
context) and more distal (e.g., organizational policies, institutional factors) environmental characteristics. Ac-
cordingly, it would be important to more strongly integrate insights from lifespan developmental theories with
work and organizational psychology theories (e.g., job demands–resources model), but also with life course
theories that have been developed in the field of sociology, such as the model of flexible careers across the
life course (Moen and Sweet, 2004; Tomlinson et al., 2018; Zacher and Froidevaux, 2021). Based on such a
theoretical integration and extension, future theories could adopt a multilevel perspective on age and occu-
pational wellbeing, with predictors residing not only at the intra- and interindividual levels, but also at the job,
team, organization, and societal or institutional levels. These models should also incorporate the notion of
person–environment fit, which has been suggested to play a key role in successful ageing and occupational
wellbeing across the working lifespan (Kooij et al., 2020; Zacher et al., 2014a).

Future empirical research should operationalize and test the person-related and contextual mechanisms and
boundary conditions proposed by existing conceptual models on relationships between age and occupation-
al wellbeing (Scheibe and Zacher, 2013; Zacher et al., 2014a). In addition, future research could also focus
on updating and extending earlier meta-analytic work in this area, as several meta-analyses have been con-
ducted more than 10 years ago (Zacher and Froidevaux, 2021). Furthermore, consistent with the potential
theoretical advancements outlined above, it seems important that future empirical research adopts a multi-
level approach to study associations between age and occupational wellbeing, including effects of predic-
tors on multiple levels, as well as cross-level interactions between employee age and higher-level constructs
(e.g., Zacher and Yang, 2016). Moreover, researchers have called for increased methodological creativity and
rigour in designing studies on age and work (Bohlmann et al., 2018). First, studies should make use of sam-
ples with appropriate numbers of participants from different age groups, as older workers have often been un-

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 13 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

derrepresented in previous work. Second, studies on age and work should operationalize chronological age
as a continuous variable instead of splitting it into arbitrary age groups; due to conceptual and methodological
problems with the notion of ‘generations', researchers should also avoid grouping birth cohorts and examin-
ing ‘generational differences’ (Rauvola et al., 2019; Rudolph and Zacher, 2017). Third, it is further important
to consider theoretically appropriate control variables and associated alternative explanations when examin-
ing relationships between age and occupational wellbeing, such as job and organizational tenure (Riza et al.,
2018). In this regard, researchers have also suggested ‘alternatives’ to chronological age, such as subjective
or perceived age (i.e., how old employees ‘feel'), as predictors of work-related outcomes. However, recent
studies have suggested that negative associations between subjective age and favourable work outcomes,
including occupational wellbeing, become weaker and non-significant when individuals’ self-beliefs (i.e., core
self-evaluations; Judge, 2009) are statistically accounted for (Zacher and Rudolph, 2019a, 2019b). Fourth,
it is advisable to routinely test for potential curvilinear associations between age and work-related variables,
especially occupational wellbeing outcomes, as some research has suggested ‘peaks’ or ‘valleys’ in wellbe-
ing in midlife or mid-career (Blanchflower and Oswald, 2008; Clark et al., 1996; Zacher et al., 2014b). For
instance, a recent meta-analysis found a curvilinear association between age and career commitment (Katz
et al., 2019). Finally, scholars interested in age and occupational wellbeing should increasingly adopt alterna-
tives to cross-sectional and single-source survey designs (e.g., experiments, longitudinal studies; Bohlmann
et al., 2018). Regarding the latter, several recent studies have demonstrated that controlled experimental ma-
nipulations, for instance of age-based discrimination (Armenta et al., 2017), as well as longitudinal studies
with multiple waves (Potočnik and Sonnentag, 2013), can significantly advance understanding of changes in
occupational wellbeing at higher ages.

Finally, in terms of implications for organizations and policy, it seems advisable that practitioners take into ac-
count the existing evidence from meta-analyses and primary studies when designing work and organizational
policies, procedures, and jobs, and when motivating and supporting members of different age groups at work
(Kooij et al., 2020; Truxillo et al., 2015). For instance, it is important to emphasize that, in contrast to common
age stereotypes, research shows only few declines in occupational wellbeing for certain objective indicators
of ill-health, whereas many studies show age-related maintenance and increases in subjective physical and
mental health and wellbeing. In addition, for many indicators of occupational wellbeing, interindividual vari-
ability increases as workers get older, making age a less useful proxy for health and wellbeing in later life
(Zacher, 2015). Accordingly, managers should combat negative age-based stereotypes in their organizations,
as these can not only lead to age discrimination in employment, but also can be internalized by older workers

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 14 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

themselves, with negative consequences for their work motivation and occupational wellbeing (Von Hippel
et al., 2012, 2018). With regard to job design, it is important to consider age-related changes in employees’
abilities and needs; for instance, there is evidence that older workers report higher occupational wellbeing in
jobs that are meaningful and allow them to make use of their skills (Mühlenbrock and Hüffmeier, 2020; Zani-
boni et al., 2013). Supervisors and leaders should generally avoid recommendations based on generational
stereotypes and instead adopt a lifespan perspective that considers individuals’ changing abilities, needs, and
work–life circumstances (Rudolph et al., 2018b). Finally, at the organizational level, it seems advisable to cre-
ate a non-discriminatory as well as ageing- and diversity-friendly climate (i.e., formal policies, practices, and
procedures) and culture (i.e., informal values and beliefs; Böhm et al., 2014; Kunze et al., 2011; Zacher and
Yang, 2016).

Conclusion

The ageing and increasingly age-diverse workforce has resulted in an increased interest among both organi-
zational researchers and practitioners in associations between chronological age and occupational health and
wellbeing. The lifespan developmental perspective and its related theories represent useful frameworks to un-
derstand how, why, and when occupational health and wellbeing differ between younger and older workers or
change with increasing age. Several meta-analyses on bivariate relationships between age and occupational
wellbeing have refuted the common stereotype of the generally unhealthy older worker, showing that objec-
tive indicators of physical ill-health increase, but also that subjective forms of physical and mental health and
wellbeing often increase with age as well. These age-related changes can be explained by both environmen-
tal and personal resources, including ageing-supportive job design as well as successful ageing strategies.
Future theory development should focus on integrating different lifespan theories, as well as lifespan theo-
ries and organizational and sociological life course theories, and applying improved theoretical frameworks
to better understand both gains and losses in occupational wellbeing with age. In addition, further empiri-
cal research is necessary to better understand the mechanisms and person-related and contextual boundary
conditions of associations between age and various dimensions of occupational wellbeing. In their attempts
to manage the ageing workforce, organizational practitioners should take into account these research find-
ings when designing work policies, procedures, and jobs, and when motivating and supporting members of
different age groups at work.

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 15 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

References

Ackerman PL and Kanfer R. (2020) Work in the 21st century: New directions for aging and adult development.
American Psychologist 75: 486–498.

Armenta BM, Stroebe K, Scheibe S, Postmes, T and Van Yperen NW. (2017) Feeling younger and identifying
with older adults: Testing two routes to maintaining well-being in the face of age discrimination. PLoS ONE
12: e0187805.

Bal PM, De Lange AH, Jansen PGW and Van Der Velde MEG. (2008) Psychological contract breach and job
attitudes: A meta-analysis of age as a moderator. Journal of Vocational Behavior 72: 143–158.

Baltes PB. (1987) Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between
growth and decline. Developmental Psychology 23: 611–626.

Baltes PB. (1997) On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compen-
sation as foundation of developmental theory. American Psychologist 52: 366–380.

Baltes PB and Baltes MM. (1990) Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The model of selective
optimization with compensation. In: Baltes PB and Baltes MM (eds) Successful aging: Perspectives from the
behavioral sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1–34.

Baltes PB, Reese HW and Lipsitt LP. (1980) Life-span developmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy 31: 65–110.

Baltes PB and Smith J. (2003) New frontiers in the future of aging: From successful aging of the young old to
the dilemmas of the fourth age. Gerontology 49: 123–135.

Blanchard-Fields F. (2007) Everyday problem solving and emotion: An adult developmental perspective. Cur-
rent Directions in Psychological Science 16: 26–31.

Blanchflower DG and Oswald AJ. (2008) Is well-being U-shaped over the life cycle? Social Science & Medi-
cine 66: 1733–1749.

Bohlmann C, Rudolph CW and Zacher H. (2018) Methodological recommendations to move research on work
and aging forward. Work, Aging and Retirement 4: 225–237.

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 16 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

Böhm SA, Kunze F and Bruch H. (2014) Spotlight on age-diversity climate: The impact of age-inclusive HR
practices on firm-level outcomes. Personnel Psychology 67: 667–704.

Carstensen LL. (2006) The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science 312: 1913–1915.

Carstensen LL, Isaacowitz DM and Charles ST. (1999) Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional se-
lectivity. American Psychologist 54: 165–181.

Charles ST. (2010) Strength and vulnerability integration: A model of emotional well-being across adulthood.
Psychological Bulletin 136: 1068–1091.

Charles ST and Luong G. (2013) Emotional experience across adulthood: The theoretical model of strength
and vulnerability integration. Current Directions in Psychological Science 22: 443–448.

Clark A, Oswald A and Warr P. (1996) Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age? Journal of Occupational and Or-
ganizational Psychology 69: 57–81.

Diewald M and Mayer KU. (2009) The sociology of the life course and life span psychology: Integrated para-
digm or complementing pathways? Advances in Life Course Research 14: 5–14.

Doerwald F, Scheibe S, Zacher H and Van Yperen NW. (2016) Emotional competencies across adulthood:
State of knowledge and implications for the work context. Work, Aging and Retirement 2: 159–216.

Erikson EH. (1950) Childhood and society, New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Feldman DC and Vogel RM. (2009) The aging process and person-environment fit. In: Baugh SG and Sullivan
SE (eds) Research in careers. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press, 1–25.

Fisher GG, Chaffee DS, Tetrick LE, Davalos DB and Potter GG. (2017) Cognitive functioning, aging, and
work: A review and recommendations for research and practice. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
22: 314–336.

Freund AM and Baltes PB. (2000) The orchestration of selection, optimization, and compensation: An action-
theoretical conceptualization of a theory of developmental regulation. In: Perrig WJ and Grob A (eds) Control
of human behavior, mental processes, and consciousness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 35–58.

Fung HH, Carstensen LL and Lutz AM. (1999) Influence of time on social preferences: Implications for life-
span development. Psychology and Aging 14: 595–604.

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 17 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

Gostautaite B and Buciuniene I. (2015) Work engagement during life-span: The role of interaction outside the
organization and task significance. Journal of Vocational Behavior 89: 109–119.

Haase CM, Heckhausen J and Wrosch C. (2013) Developmental regulation across the life span: Toward a
new synthesis. Developmental Psychology 49: 964–972.

Heckhausen J and Schulz R. (1995) A life-span theory of control. Psychological Review 102: 284–304.

Heckhausen J, Wrosch C and Schulz R. (2010) A motivational theory of life-span development. Psychological
Review 117: 32–60.

Hertel G, Rauschenbach C, Thielgen M and Krumm S. (2015) Are older workers more active copers? Longi-
tudinal effects of age-contingent coping on strain at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36: 514–537.

Hertel G and Zacher H. (2018) Managing the aging workforce. In: Ones DS, Anderson N, Viswesvaran C, et
al. (eds) The Sage handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 396–428.

Huffman A, Culbertson SS, Henning JB and Goh A. (2013) Work-family conflict across the lifespan. Journal
of Managerial Psychology 28: 761–780.

Jex SM, Wang M and Zarubin A. (2007) Aging and occupational health. In: Shultz KS and Adams GA (eds)
Aging and work in the 21st century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 199–223.

Judge TA. (2009) Core self-evaluations and work success. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18:
58–62.

Katz IM, Rudolph CW and Zacher H. (2019) Age and career commitment: Meta-analytic tests of competing
linear versus curvilinear relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior 112: 396–416.

Kooij DTAM, Zacher H, Wang M and Heckhausen J. (2020) Successful aging at work: A process model
to guide future research and practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 13: 345–365https://doi.org/
10.1017/iop.2020.1.

Kunze F, Böhm SA and Bruch H. (2011) Age diversity, age discrimination climate and performance conse-
quences: A cross organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 32: 264–290.

Lang FR and Carstensen LL. (2002) Time counts: Future time perspective, goals, and social relationships.
Psychology and Aging 17: 125–139.

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 18 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

Levinson DJ. (1986) A conception of adult development. American Psychologist 41: 3–13.

Maertens JA, Putter SE, Chen PY, Diehl M and Huang YH. (2012) Physical capabilities and occupational
health of older workers. In: Hedge JW and Borman WC (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Work and Aging. New
York: Oxford University Press, 215–235.

McCarthy J, Heraty N and Bamberg A. (2019) Lifespan perspectives on age-related stereotypes, prejudice,
and discrimination at work (and beyond). In: Baltes BB, Rudolph CW and Zacher H (eds) Work across the
lifespan. London, UK: Academic Press, 417–435.

Moen P and Sweet S. (2004) From ‘work–family’ to ‘flexible careers': A life course reframing. Community,
Work & Family 7: 209–226.

Moghimi D, Zacher H, Scheibe S and Van Yperen NW. (2017) The selection, optimization, and compensation
model in the work context: A systematic review and meta-analysis of two decades of research. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 38: 247–275.

Mühlenbrock I and Hüffmeier J. (2020) Differential work design for different age groups? A systematic litera-
ture review of the moderating role of age in the relation between psychosocial work characteristics and health.
Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie 64: 171–195.

Ng TWH and Feldman DC. (2010) The relationship of age with job attitudes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psy-
chology 63: 667–718.

Ng TWH and Feldman DC. (2013) Employee age and health. Journal of Vocational Behavior 83: 336–345.

Ng TWH and Feldman DC. (2015) The moderating effects of age in the relationships of job autonomy to work
outcomes. Work, Aging and Retirement 1: 64–78.

Opitz P, Gross JJ and Urry HL. (2012) Selection, optimization, and compensation in the domain of emotion
regulation: Applications to adolescence, older age, and major depressive disorder. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass 6: 142–155.

Parry E and McCarthy J. (2017) The Palgrave handbook of age diversity and work, London: Palgrave Macmil-
lan.

Posthuma RA and Campion MA. (2009) Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes, moderators,
and future research directions. Journal of Management 35: 158–188.

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 19 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

Potočnik K and Sonnentag S. (2013) A longitudinal study of well-being in older workers and retirees: The role
of engaging in different types of activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.

Rauschenbach C, Krumm S, Thielgen MM and Hertel G. (2013) Age and work-related stress: A review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology 28: 781–804.

Rauvola RS, Rudolph CW, Ebbert L and Zacher H. (2020) Person-environment fit and work satisfaction: Ex-
ploring the conditional effects of age. Work, Aging and Retirement 6: 101–117.

Rauvola RS, Rudolph CW and Zacher H. (2019) Generationalism: Problems and implications. Organizational
Dynamics 48: 100664.

Riza SD, Ganzach Y and Liu Y. (2018) Time and job satisfaction: A longitudinal study of the differential roles
of age and tenure. Journal of Management 44: 2558–2579.

Rodrigues FR, Cunha MP, Castanheira F, Bal PM and Jansen PG. (2020) Person-job fit across the work lifes-
pan – The case of classical ballet dancers. Journal of Vocational Behavior 118: 103400.

Rudolph CW. (2016) Lifespan developmental perspectives on working: A literature review of motivational the-
ories. Work, Aging and Retirement 2: 130–158.

Rudolph CW, Marcus J and Zacher H. (2018a) Global issues in work and aging. In: Shultz KS and Adams GA
(eds) Aging and work in the 21st century. New York: Routledge, 292–324.

Rudolph CW, Rauvola RS and Zacher H. (2018b) Leadership and generations at work: A critical review. The
Leadership Quarterly 29: 44–57.

Rudolph CW and Zacher H. (2017) Considering generations from a lifespan developmental perspective.
Work, Aging and Retirement 3: 113–129.

Salmela-Aro K and Upadyaya K. (2018) Role of demands-resources in work engagement and burnout in dif-
ferent career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior 108: 190–200.

Salthouse TA. (2012) Consequences of age-related cognitive declines. Annual Review of Psychology 63:
201–226.

Scheibe S and Zacher H. (2013) A lifespan perspective on emotion regulation, stress, and well-being in the
workplace. In: Perrewé PL, Halbesleben J and Rosen CC (eds) Research in occupational stress and well-be-
ing. Bingley, UK: Emerald, 167–197.

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 20 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

Schmitt A and Bathen M. (2015) Occupational health, well-being, and aging. In: Pachana NA (ed) Encyclope-
dia of geropsychology. New York: Springer, 1674–1681.

Schwall AR. (2012) Defining age and using age-relevant constructs. In: Hedge JW and Borman WC (eds)
The Oxford handbook of work and aging. New York: Oxford University Press, 169–186.

Settersten RA. (2017) Some things I have learned about aging by studying the life course. Innovation in Aging
1: 1–7.

Tomlinson J, Baird M, Berg P and Cooper R. (2018) Flexible careers across the life course: Advancing theory,
research and practice. Human Relations 71: 4–22.

Truxillo DM, Cadiz DM and Hammer LB. (2015) Supporting the aging workforce: A research review and rec-
ommendations for workplace intervention research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Orga-
nizational Behavior 2: 351–381.

Urry HL and Gross JJ. (2010) Emotion regulation in older age. Current Directions in Psychological Science
19: 352–357.

Von Hippel C, Kalokerinos EK, Haanterä K and Zacher H. (2018) Age-based stereotype threat and work out-
comes: Stress appraisals and rumination as mediators. Psychology and Aging 34: 68–84.

Von Hippel C, Kalokerinos EK and Henry JD. (2012) Stereotype threat among older employees: Relationships
with job attitudes and turnover intentions. Psychology and Aging 28: 17–27.

World Health Organization. (1948) Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization, Geneva:
Author.

Yaldiz LM, Truxillo DM, Bodner T and Hammer LB. (2018) Do resources matterfor employee stress? It de-
pends on how old you are. Journal of Vocational Behavior107: 182–194.

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

Zacher H, Feldman DC and Schulz H. (2014a) Age, occupational strain, and well-being: A person-environ-
ment fit perspective. In: Perrewé PL, Halbesleben J and Rosen CC (eds) Research in occupational stress
and well-being. Bingley, UK: Emerald, 83–111.

Zacher H and Frese M. (2009) Remaining time and opportunities at work: Relationships between age, work
characteristics, and occupational future time perspective. Psychology and Aging 24: 487–493.

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 21 of 22
Sage Sage Reference
© Tony Wall, Cary L

Zacher H and Froidevaux A. (2021) Life stage, lifespan, and life course perspectives on vocational behavior
and development: A theoretical framework, review, and research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103476

Zacher H, Jimmieson NL and Bordia P. (2014b) Time pressure and coworker support mediate the curvilinear
relationship between age and occupational well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 19:
462–475.

Zacher H and Rudolph CW. (2017) Successful aging at work and beyond: A review and critical perspective.
In: Profili S, Sammarra A and Innocenti L (eds) Age diversity in the workplace: An organizational perspective.
Bingley, UK: Emerald, 35–64.

Zacher H and Rudolph CW. (2019a) Just a mirage: On the incremental predictive validity of subjective age.
Work, Aging and Retirement 5: 141–162.

Zacher H and Rudolph CW. (2019b) Why do we act as old as we feel? The role of occupational future time
perspective and core self-evaluations in the relationship between subjective age and job crafting behavior.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 28: 831–844.

Zacher H, Rudolph CW and Baltes BB. (2019) An invitation to lifespan thinking. In: Baltes BB, Rudolph CW
and Zacher H (eds) Work across the lifespan. London, UK: Academic Press, 1–14.

Zacher H and Schmitt A. (2016) Work characteristics and occupational well-being: The role of age. Frontiers
in Psychology 7: 1411.

Zacher H and Yang J. (2016) Organizational climate for successful aging. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1007.

Zaniboni S, Truxillo DM and Fraccaroli F. (2013) Differential effects of task variety and skill variety on burnout
and turnover intentions for older and younger workers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy-
chology 22: 306–317.

• wellbeing

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529757187

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing

Page 22 of 22