Abstract
After recognizing the changing age composition of their labor force, some employers have set out to learn about different management strategies that can be adopted in response to the challenges and opportunities of this unprecedented workforce transformation. Based on our work with more than 200 employers, we present a taxonomy of policies and programs that have been adopted in consideration of an increasingly older workforce. We found the majority of these are multi-generational and relevant to all employees, and we also identified programs and policies more pertinent to aging employees such as offering support for elder caregiving or offering phased retirement.
Key Words
Aging, age-inclusive, experienced employees, employer policies, age discrimination
Between 2020 and 2030, the number of employees over 55 is expected to grow at 3 times the rate of those under the age of 55 (1.4% versus 0.4%), and the annual increase in employees over the age of 65 will reach nearly 5.0% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). While most employers are aware of this substantial change in the age composition of the labor force (Kaskie & Rochford, 2021), researchers have only just begun to recognize how critical it is to understand what employers are doing to recruit and retain experienced employees. Bohlman et al. (2018) suggested employer policies and programs can moderate individual employee experiences. Targeted health promotion and prevention programs have been associated with a reduction in age-associated illnesses and workplace injuries; ergonomic accommodations and promoting autonomy over retirement decisions increased job satisfaction; and employment assistance programs addressing the needs of employed elder caregivers reduced unplanned workplace exits and undesired losses of salary and benefits (Andersson et al., 2016; Crowne et al., 2014; Silverstein, 2008).
Using survey data collected from 146 employers across the state of Colorado, we documented the extent to which 40 different policies and programs pertinent to older workers have been adopted.
More recent work has sought to align these varied policy and programmatic efforts within a theoretical framework. Parker and Andrei (2020) articulated three categories of employer strategies for advancing the interests of aging employees. They contended employers could (1) “include” experienced employees by creating recruitment strategies that appeal to persons over 50, (2) “individualize” policies and programs to reflect life course changes and address experienced employee needs for workplace ergonomic accommodations or protected leaves of absence for parental caregiving; and (3) “integrate” experienced employees through intergenerational mentoring and internships. Eppler-Hata and colleagues (2020) presented a model of employer policies and programs focusing on age-related health challenges such as workplace wellness, health promotion, and disability prevention efforts. Taneva and Arnold (2018) added examples of “age-inclusive” employers offering continuing education and training opportunities and also creating role accommodations for aging employees who have health challenges, caregiving responsibilities, or preferences to move into part-time or seasonal positions.
In our previous work, we sought to compile an exhaustive set of age-inclusive employer policies and programs that enumerate these theoretical perspectives. We surveyed 187 human resource specialists from universities and colleges across the United States and collected information about any organizational effort considered to be relevant to the recruitment, retention, or retirement of experienced employees (Kaskie, 2016). In all, we curated 10 distinct approaches (eight policies/programmatic efforts and two firm culture efforts) that can be adopted to support experienced employees, and catalogued 40 discrete examples of what employers may pursue (summarized in Table 1).
Table I. Types of Employer Policies and Programs supportive of Experienced Employees
| Policy or Program Type | Program Descriptions | Program Examples |
| Health and Wellness Promotion | Related to wellness promotion and disease prevention. | Gym memberships/discountsOn–site life-chapter specific fitness and recreation (e.g., walking clubs)Support for mindfulness, yoga and other classesHealth education (e.g., diabetes management) classesRoutine health screenings and/or vaccinationsIndividualized health counseling or personal training |
| Disability and Injury Prevention | Related to safety promotion as well as acute and accumulated injury prevention. | Ergonomic education/trainingIndividual workstation evaluationsWorkstation modification (standing desks, visual enhancements for screens)Personal support equipment (supportive flooring, joint braces or back support belts)Return to work programs for persons with injury or disability |
| Continuing Education and Training | Related to equitable creation and utilization of opportunities for continued education and professional development. | Tuition reimbursement for continuing educationInternships and mentorships for employees, including those age 50 and overEmployer sponsored skills training and on-the-job continuing education Incentives and promotions tied to training and education |
| Financial Literacy and Retirement Counseling | Related to financial security and preparedness for financial and non-financial aspects of retirement. | Seminar on financial aspects of retirement and savings calculationsSeminar on non-financial aspect of retirement (workplace exits, volunteer options, housing)Confidential individual counseling on retirement planning Formal request process |
| Flexible Workplace Options | Related to physical and temporal working environment adjustments. | Retraining or job swaps for less stressful/less demanding rolesFlexible work schedules (10 hours days, seasonal scheduling) Flexible work arrangements (work from home/job share) |
| Caregiving Support | Related to schedule and professional responsibility accommodations for those acting as elder caregivers. | Access to education and training for taking care of spouses and/or parentsReferral to services for health care and long term care supportive service needs (e.g., home health)Nurse advice lines or health counselors for post-acute careOne-on-one consultation and referral for end-of-life and bereavementReimbursement for older adult day care Access to FMLA and extended leave for older adult care |
| Retirement Health Insurance and Savings | Related to employer-sponsored health insurance and retirement savings benefits. | Defined contribution plans (401(k), 403(b), 457)Link to third party retirement savings options Buy-outs for “early” retirements Employer-sponsored health insurance for FT employees Health insurance coverage extension to PT and seasonal employees Supplemental health insurance coverage for retirees |
| Retirement Pathways | Related to transitions from full-time work to full-time retirement that allow for continued engagement with and/or gradual transition from the workforce at the discretion of the employee. | Early retirementPhased retirementRetire-rehire opportunitiesConsultation or other time-limited options Connectedness to external entities to facilitate job placement or civic engagement for retirees |
| Include ‘age’ in DEI | Inclusion of ‘age’ efforts, statements and conceptual frameworks used to advance diversity, equity and inclusion within the organization | |
| Valuing efforts that promote age-inclusivity and generational diversity | Assign corporate value to supporting experienced employees through the adoption of the 8 aforementioned policy and program efforts | |
These include offering (1) employee health and wellness promotion programs (Goetzel et al., 2017; Loeppke et al., 2013; U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, 2002); (2) implementing disability and injury prevention efforts (Collinson, 2017; Oregon Occupational Safety and Health, 2008; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019); (3) providing continued professional education and training (Neighborhood Trust Financial Partners, 2018); (4) offering financial planning and retirement counseling services (Krajnak, 2008; Neighborhood Trust Financial Partners, 2018; Society for Human Resources Management, 2006);(5) promoting flexible workplace options, including part-time and seasonal roles (Bell Policy Center, 2019; KFF, 2017); (6) providing support for elder caregiving responsibilities(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018); (7) offering retirement health insurance and savings programs (Cahill et al., 2018; Giandrea et al., 2009); and (8) devising an array of work-to-retirement pathways to support employees’ varying needs and preferences. (Cahill et al., 2011, 2015; Kaskie, 2016). We also found it critical for employers to (9) include aging in their diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and (10) assign a corporate value to advancing policies and programs on behalf of experienced employees.
We sorted these organizational policies and programs into two groups. One group consisted of efforts foreseeably beneficial to all employees, not just those over 50 (i.e., multi-generational). These age-inclusive efforts include health and wellness promotion, disability and injury prevention, continued education and training, as well as financial literacy and retirement counseling. The other group, referred to as “age-specific,” consisted of efforts more directly beneficial to experienced employees: role restructuring, elder caregiving support, retirement insurance and saving programs, and flexible retirement pathways.
Research Objectives
In this report, we validate our taxonomy of age-inclusive and age-specific management strategies using the results of a survey fielded among a range of 146 employers across the state of Colorado. We first describe whether employers had acted on each of our ten strategies in any way, and documented the extent which employers have implemented examples of each. We then consider variability in employer responses, noting whether any type of policy or practice was implemented by different groups of employers: those with over 100 employees, those of for-profit firms, and those in physically intensive industries such as manufacturing. While previous work has focused on employer policies or programs and then assigned these into theoretical frameworks, researchers have not yet validated such efforts by conducting an exhaustive survey of policies and programs that have been adopted.
Methods
Using survey data collected from 146 employers across the state of Colorado, we documented the extent to which 40 different policies and programs pertinent to older workers have been adopted. The survey was fielded electronically across the state of Colorado between August 2019 and February 2020. This research study was approved by our Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research.
Our project team developed a survey instrument consisting of 11 sections, eight of which addressed policies and programs most relevant to experienced employees. Questions also collected information about organizational characteristics, respondent characteristics, respondents’ perceptions of organizational commitment to experienced employees, and inclusion of age as a dimension of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. The number of questions a participant would encounter varied based on previous responses but was at least 57 and at most 93. The survey was pilot tested by aging interest group leaders and HR specialists in Colorado. Once finalized, the survey was uploaded into an electronic survey administration program and placed on a secured server maintained at our institution.
Supporting the physical health of current employees appears to be a priority: A majority of respondents (108, 76.6%) reported offering some form of health and wellness program to all employees (i.e., multi-generational).
Survey Administration
Study invitations were sent by electronic mail up to five times, asking the recipient to complete an online, secured survey designed to take approximately 30 minutes to complete. If the invitation was sent to someone other than the most appropriate person in the firm to answer the survey, the recipient was asked to forward the invitation to the chief executive or most senior HR specialist. The invitations provided a secure link to the survey in which there was no way for the project team to identify the respondent IP address or any other personally identifying information. Neither paper nor non-English survey versions were made available to potential participants. Participants reserved the right to decline to respond to any of the survey questions and received no monetary compensation for their participation. A letter from Colorado Governor Jared Polis encouraging participation in our study was included with survey invitations and all respondents were invited to attend a full-day conference in which survey findings would be presented at no cost.
Sample
We secured contact information for 1,445 employers from the Colorado Society of Human Resources Management and relied on our Colorado-based partners to supplement our list so we would have a representative population of potential survey respondents in terms of industry, for-profit/nonprofit status, geographic location, and firm size (large employers consisted of 500+ employees, small employers had less than 100 employees). Of all individuals contacted, 146 completed the survey during the 6-month survey administration period. HR specialists who responded to our survey represented a wide range of industries including health/personal care services (18, 14.6%), education/childcare (17, 13.8%), and business/professional services (16, 13.0%). With respect to profit status, the largest proportion of respondents represented for-profit privately held organizations (52, 42.3%), and government and public organizations were the next most prevalent (33, 26.8%). Most firms were medium sized with 100-499 employees (51, 34.9%) or large sized with more than 500 employees (47, 32.2%).
Analysis
We accounted for the prevalence of policies and programs either currently active amongst Colorado employers or in planning stages at the time of the survey. All descriptive analyses were completed with STATA version 16.1.
Results
The prevalence of each type of policy and program is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Prevalence of Employers Actively Offering Supportive Programs by Employer type
| Policy or Program Type | Overall (n=147) | Employers with over 100 employees (n = 99) | For-Profit Employers (n = 67) | Employers in Physically Intensive Industries (n = 36) |
| Age-Inclusive Programs | ||||
| Health and Wellness Promotion | 114 / 147 (77.6%) | 89 / 99 (89.9%) | 61 / 67 (91.1%) | 35 / 36 (97.2%) |
| Disability and Injury Prevention | 124 / 147 (84.4%) | 89 / 99 (89.9%) | 54 / 67 (80.6%) | 31 / 36 (86.1%) |
| Continuing Education and Training | 111 / 147 (75.5%) | 82 / 99 (82.8%) | 45 / 67 (67.2%) | 28 / 36 (77.8%) |
| Financial Literacy and Retirement Counseling | 49 / 147 (33.3%) | 41 / 99 (41.4%) | 13 / 67 (19.4%) | 12 / 36 (33.3%) |
| Age-Specific Programs | ||||
| Flexible Workplace Options | 70 / 147 (47.6%) | 50 / 99 (50.5%) | 43 / 67 (64.2%) | 20 / 36 (55.6%) |
| Caregiving Support | 73 / 147 (49.7%) | 63 / 99 (63.6%) | 37 / 67 (55.2%) | 20 / 36 (55.6%) |
| Health Insurance and Retirement Savings | 113 / 147 (76.9%) | 86 / 99 (86.9%) | 61 / 67 (91.1%) | 35 / 36 (97.2%) |
| Retirement Pathways | 77 / 147 (52.3%) | 61 / 99 (61.6%) | 37 / 67 (55.2%) | 20 / 36 (55.6%) |
Supporting the physical health of current employees appears to be a priority: A majority of respondents (108, 76.6%) reported offering some form of health and wellness program to all employees (i.e., multi-generational). The most common of these included health screening and vaccinations, health education programs and individual health counseling. Nearly half (66, 46.0%) offered gym membership discounts. Many employers also sought to protect all employees including experienced employees through injury prevention initiatives: More than 4 in 5 respondents (107, 82.3%) reported offering some form of working environment support. The most common forms included workstation evaluations and modifications, and employers within more physically demanding sectors often offered ergonomic education and training, as well as supportive devices such as back braces and padded flooring. Education and training opportunities also were considered important amongst respondents, and strategies most frequently used included tuition reimbursement (67, 50.8%) and mentorship programs spanning generations (39, 29.5%). Again, these were considered multigenerational as they were available to all employees.
Many respondents reported facilitating retirement counseling for employees. While over 1 in 3 respondents (49, 37.1%) offered counseling pertaining to retirement income, expenses, and drawing down savings in retirement, a much smaller proportion offered counseling regarding the non-financial aspects of retirement (20, 15.0%) or means of connecting employees with retirement opportunities external to the organization (e.g., volunteer, civic engagement, etc.) (17, 12.9%).
Other age-specific accommodations reported by respondents related to flexible workplace programming included retraining or job swap opportunities (12, 9.1%), intergenerational mentorship programing (39, 29.5%), and internships available to employees age 50 and over (26, 19.7%). While more than 4 in 5 respondents (110, 81.5%) reported offering employee assistance programs of some type and nearly 3 of every 4 employers extended leave programs to care for children, spouses, or parents (54, 39.7%), less than half of all employers (52, 38.5%) offered education and supportive services specific to employees taking care of older spouses and/or parents.
Most employers offered health insurance (74.8%) as well as retirement savings plans (78.2%) to all or most of their employees, but only some employers (32.5%) offered disability insurance and only one 1 of 6 offered Medicare supplemental insurance coverage upon retirement. A majority of respondents reported offering a retire–rehire option (68, 54.0%), fewer reported offering phased retirement (33, 26.2%), and fewer still offer early retirement options (19, 15.1%).
Discussion
A large proportion of employers have indicated they are favorably disposed to implementing policies and programs that advance the interests of employees across all life chapters (i.e., multi-generational). Four out of five firms operate health promotion and disability prevention programs, and 3 out of 4 offer workplace wellness and employee support services. We found 3 of every 4 employers valued “age” as part of their multi-generational efforts and more than two thirds had adopted a multigenerational workplace program.
The survey findings validate how our proposed taxonomy of age-inclusive and age-specific management strategies provide an exhaustive account for how employers address experienced employees.
We also observed a substantial amount of variability across Colorado employers in terms of adopting age-specific policies and programs. While each example of an age-specific policy or program was adopted by at least a few employers, our findings suggest that most employers have advanced only a few age-specific efforts and no one employer stands apart for adopting an exhaustive set of policies and programs for experienced employees. For example, we observed less than 1 out of 5 respondents offered desirable work-to-retirement pathways. We are particularly concerned about the lack of employer adoption of age-specific policies and programs because our sample of study participants arguably were more likely to already be engaged in or considering such efforts than those who declined participation. So even though some part of our survey response rate may be explained by a lack of incentives to participate, we suspect that many employers chose not to answer simply because they do not offer age-specific strategies, if any age-inclusive strategies at all. Future surveys of employer activity need to be fielded among a larger sample of employers and repeated over an extended period as to acquire a more complete understanding of the apparent lack of employer engagement in this issue,
Meanwhile, the survey findings validate how our proposed taxonomy of age-inclusive and age-specific management strategies provide an exhaustive account for how employers address experienced employees. We also documented the extent to which 40 discrete examples have been adopted by a wide range of employers. Looking forward, now that we have demonstrated how a complete range of employer responses can be accounted for, researchers can now move to conceptualize age-inclusive and age-specific efforts as organizational outcomes and begin to examine the structures and processes across different types of firms that support favorable policy and program adoption.
Brian Kaskie, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Health Management and Policy, College of Public Health, at the University of Iowa.
Hannah Rochford is an assistant professor in the Department of Health Management and Policy at Texas A&M University.
Photo credit: Shutterstock/GaudiLab
References
AARP. “Staying Ahead of the Curve 2013: The AARP Work and Career Study.” (2014). https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/general/2014/Staying-Ahead-of-the-Curve-2013-The-Work-and-Career-Study. AARP-res-gen.pdf.
Aarons, G. A., Green, A. E., Trott, E., Willging, C. E., Torres, E. M., Ehrhart, M. G., & Roesch, S. C. (2016). The roles of system and organizational leadership in system-wide evidence-based intervention sustainment: a mixed-method study. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 43(6), 991-1008.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Pub. L. 90–202, 81 Stat. 602 (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) (Dec. 15, 1967).
Andersson, M., Walker, M., & Kaskie, B. (2019). Strapped for time, stressed out or both? Predictors of work interruptions and unmet needs for workplace supports. Journal of Aging and Health, 31(4), 631–651. DOI: 10.1177/0898264317744920
Backes‐Gellner, U., & Veen, S. (2013). Positive effects of ageing and age diversity in innovative companies–large‐scale empirical evidence on company productivity. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(3), 279-295.
Badenhausen, K. (2016). The Best Places For Business And Careers 2016. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2016/10/19/the-best-places-for-business-and-careers-2016/#2e1309ef9bd5
Bell Policy Center. (2019, December 6). Colorado’s changing economy & future of work. https://www.bellpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Work-Policies-Guide-to-Economic-Mobility.pdf
Bjelland, M. J., Bruyere, S. M., Von Schrader, S., Houtenville, A. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, A., & Webber, D. A. (2010). Age and disability employment discrimination: Occupational rehabilitation implications. Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 20(4), 456-471.
Boehm, S. A., Kunze, F., & Bruch, H. (2014). Spotlight on age‐diversity climate: The impact of age‐inclusive HR practices on firm‐level outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 667-704.
Bridges, G. “State Mulls Retirement Savings Options.” Colorado. (2019). https://states.aarp.org/colorado/state-mulls-retirement-savings-options.
Brooke, L., & Taylor, P. (2005). Older workers and employment: managing age relations. Ageing & Society, 25(3), 415-429.
Browne, P., Carr, E., Fleischmann, M., Xue, B., & Stansfeld, S. A. (2019). The relationship between workplace psychosocial environment and retirement intentions and actual retirement: a systematic review. European journal of ageing, 16(1), 73-82.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey data from 2000 and 2016, at https://www.bls.gov/cps/.
Cahill, K. E., Giandrea, M. D., & Quinn, J. F. (2018). Is bridge job activity overstated? Work, Aging and Retirement, 4(4), 330–351.
Cahill, K. E., Giandrea, M. D., & Quinn, J. F. (2011). Reentering the labor force after retirement. Monthly Labor Review, 134(6), 34–42.
Cahill, K. E., Giandrea, M. D., & Quinn, J. F. (2015). Retirement patterns and the macroeconomy, 1992–2010: The prevalence and determinants of bridge jobs, phased retirement, and re-entry among three recent cohorts of older Americans. The Gerontologist, 55(3), 384–403.
Colorado Business Economic Outlook & Forum. (2014, February 05). Retrieved from https://www.colorado.edu/business/centers/business-research-division/colorado-business-economic-outlook-forum
Colorado’s Changing Economy & Future of Work. (2019, December 06). The Bell Policy Center. Retrieved from https://www.bellpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Work-Policies-Guide-to-Economic-Mobility.pdf
Colorado Demographics | Employment Data, Fiscal Data, and More. (2019, December 06). Retrieved from https://muninetguide.com/demographic/colorado
Colorado Labor Force Forecast. Department of Local Affairs State Demography Office. 2014. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Colorado%20Labor%20Force%20Forecast%202014%20.pdf
Collinson, C. (2017, August). All about retirement: An employer survey. TransAmerica Center for Retirement Studies. https://www.transamericacenter.org/docs/default-source/employer-research/tcrs2017_sr_employer_research.pdf.
Crowne, K. A. (2013). Developing a better understanding of the older worker. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 15(1), 54-63.
Crowne, K. A., Cochran, J., & Carpenter, C. E. (2014). Older-worker-friendly policies and affective organizational commitment. Organization Management Journal, 11(2), 62–73.
DeRocco, E. S., et al. Report of the Taskforce on the Aging of the American Workforce. (February 2008). https://www.doleta.gov/reports/FINAL_Taskforce_Report_2_27_08.pdf.
Dennis, H., & Thomas, K. (2007). Ageism in the workplace. Generations, 31(1), 84-89.
Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI). “Retirement Confidence Survey.” (May 28, 2019). Retrieved from https://www.ebri.org/retirement/retirement-confidence-survey.mployee.
Eppler-Hattab, R., Doron, I., & Meshoulam, I. (2020). Development and validation of a workplace age-friendliness measure. Innovation in Aging, 4(4), igaa024.
Giandrea, M. D., Cahill, K. E., & Quinn, J. F. (2009). Bridge jobs: A comparison across Cohorts. Research on Aging, 31(5), 549–576.
Goetzel, R., Mosher Henke, R., Head, M. A., Benevent, R., & Calitz, C. (2017). Workplace programs, policies, and environmental supports to prevent cardiovascular disease. Project Hope, Health Affairs, 36(2), 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1273
JD Supra. | Paid Family And Medical Leave Comes To Colorado (2021, January 09). Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/paid-family-and-medical-leave-comes-to-66040
KFF. (2017, September 19). Employer health benefits survey. https://www.kff.org/health-costs/report/2017-employer-health-benefits-survey/view/print.
Kaskie, B. (2016, February). The academy is aging in place: Assessing alternatives for modifying institutions of higher education. The Gerontologist, 57(5), 1–8.
Kaskie, B., Walker, M. & Andersson, M. Efforts to Address the Aging Academic Workforce: Assessing Progress Through the Three Stage Model of Institutional Change. Innovations in Higher Education, 42, no. 3 (October 2016): 225-37.
Kezar, A. Changing Faculty Workforce Models.” TIAA-CREF Institute. (2013).
Kezar, A. Tools for a Time and Place: Phased Leadership Strategies to Institutionalize a Diversity Agenda. Review of Higher Education, 30, no. (2007): 413–39.
Kezar, A., & Cecile, S. Institutionalizing equitable policies and practices for contingent faculty. The Journal of Higher Education 84.1 (2013): 56-87.
Krajnak, P. A., Burns, S. A. & Natchek, S. M. (2008). Retirement education in the workplace. Financial Services Review, 17(2).
Koopman-Boyden, P. G. & Macdonald, L. Ageing, Work Performance and Managing Ageing Academics. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25, no. 1 (2003): 29-40.
Kunze, F., Boehm, S. & Bruch, H. Age, Resistance to Change, and Job Performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, no. 7-8 (2013): 741-60.
Little, W. Aging and the Elderly. Introduction to Sociology—1st Canadian Edition. BCcampus. Open Textbook Project (2014). https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/chapter/chapter13-aging-and-the-elderly
Loeppke, R., Schill, A. L., Chosewood, C., Grosch, J. W., Allweiss, P., Burton, W. N., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., Goetzel, R. Z., Heinen, L., Hudson, T. W., Hymel, P., Merchant, J., Edington, D. W., Konicki, D. L., & Larson, P. (2013). Advancing workplace health protection and promotion for an aging workforce. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 55(5). https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0b013e31829613a4
Marschke, R., Laursen, S., Nielsen, J. M., & Rankin, P. (2007). Demographic inertia revisited: An immodest proposal to achieve equitable gender representation among faculty in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 1-26.
Neighborhood Trust Financial Partners. (2018, May). Re-imagining the workplace as a hub for financial wellness. http://www.neighborhoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/EAC-NTFP-White-Paper_Citi-FINAL_4.17.18.pdf
Oklahoma University. (2000, January 20). Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Theories. https://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/99A2/theories.htm.
Oregon Occupational Safety and Health. (2008). The advantages of ergonomics. https://osha.oregon.gov/OSHAPubs/ergo/ergoadvantages.pdf.
Rabin, B. A. & Brownson, R. C. Developing the Terminology for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health.” In Ross C. Brownson, Graham A. Colditz and Enola K. Proctor (eds.) Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press (2012).
Riley, M. W. E., Kahn, R. L. E., Foner, A. E., & Mack, K. A. (1994). Age and structural lag: Society’s failure to provide meaningful opportunities in work, family, and leisure. John Wiley & Sons.
Rogers, E. M. & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of Innovation. New York: The Free Press.
Rupp, D. E., Vodanovich, S. J. & Credé, M. The Multidimensional Nature of Ageism: Construct Validity and Group Differences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, no. 3 (2005): 335-62.
Silverstein, M. (2008). Meeting the challenges of an aging workforce. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 51(4), 269–280.
Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Foundation. Preparing for an Aging Workforce: Retail and Hospitality Industry Report (2015). https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/Documents/Preparing_for_an_Aging_Workforce .
Society for Human Resource Management Foundation. (2006). Phased retirement and flexible retirement arrangements: Strategies for retaining skilled workers. https://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org_/articles/money/employers/phased_retirement.pdf.
Steyer, R. “Employers Try to Balance Value of Older Workers’ Experience with Costs of Retaining Them—Survey.” Pensions & Investments. (December 13, 2018). Retrieved from https://www.pionline.com/article/20181213/ONLINE/181219824/employers-try-to-balance-value-of-older-workers-experience-with-costs-of-retaining-them-survey .
Turek, K., Oude Mulders, J., & Henkens, K. (2020). The Proactive Shift in Managing an Older Workforce 2009–2017: A Latent Class Analysis of Organizational Policies. The Gerontologist.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018, October 2). 51% of private industry workers had access to only defined contribution retirement plans. The Economics Daily. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/51-percent-of-private-industry-workers-had-access-to-only-defined-contribution-retirement-plans-march-2018.htm?view_full
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019, September). Employee benefits survey, national compensation survey: Glossary of employee benefit terms. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/glossary20162017.htm.
U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging. “America’s Aging Workforce.” (December 2017). Retrieved from https://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Aging% 20Workforce% 20Report% 20FINAL.pdf
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2002). Enforcement guidance: Reasonable accommodation and undue hardship under the Americans With Disabilities Act. https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html#general
Ward, K. & Wolf-Wendel, L. Academic Motherhood: How Faculty Manage Work and Family. Rutgers University Press (2012).
Wobbekind, R. Colorado 2018 Midyear Economic Update. Volume 84, Number 3, 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.colorado.edu/business/sites/default/files/attached-files/cbr_2018_issue_3.pdf90
