Organizational Change Around an Older Workforce

Abstract

Purpose of the Study

Demographic, economic, political, and technological transformations—including an unprecedented older workforce—are challenging outdated human resource logics and practices. Rising numbers of retirement-eligible Boomers portend a loss of talent, skills, and local knowledge. We investigate organizational responses to this challenge—institutional work disrupting age-graded mindsets and policies.

Design and Methods

We focus on innovative U.S. organizations in the Minneapolis–St. Paul region in the state of Minnesota, a hub for businesses and nonprofits, conducting in-depth interviews with informants from a purposive sample of 23 for-profit, nonprofit, and government organizations.

Results

Drawing on an organizational change theoretical approach, we find organizations are leading change by developing universal policies and practices, not ones intentionally geared to older workers. Both their narratives and strategies—opportunities for greater employee flexibility, training, and scaling back time commitments—suggest deliberate disrupting of established age-graded logics, replacing them with new logics valuing older workers and age-neutral approaches. Organizations in the different sectors studied are fashioning uniform policies regardless of age, exhibiting a parallel reluctance to delineate special policies for older workers.

Implications

Developing new organizational logics and practices valuing, investing in, and retaining older workers is key 21st century business challenges. The flexibility, training, and alternative pathways offered by the innovative organizations we studied point to fruitful possibilities for large-scale replacement of outdated age-biased templates of work, careers, and retirement.

Retirement has functioned as a scripted and distinct stage of the life course since it was institutionalized in the mid-20th century as predominantly a male transition—a one-way, one-time, irreversible age-graded exit from a career of continuous, full-time employment throughout most of adulthood (Costa, 1998; Graebner, 1980). The passage was less “to” than “from,” timed as a consequence of mandatory retirement regulations, Social Security, and pension provisions, prevailing social norms, and organizational policies and practices, together with situational exigencies such as a serious illness or disability.

Thus the second half of the 20th century witnessed retirement as part of an orderly flow of persons through age-graded institutions, at least for most white-collar and unionized blue-collar men, a linear, lockstep process beginning with a period of education, followed by years of continuous full-time paid work, and then by a permanent exit from the workforce (Kohli, 2007; Moen & Roehling, 2005; Riley, 1987). Despite the fact that both work and the workforce have been transformed, this lockstep logic persists in (i) institutionalized norms, policies, and practices underlying the clockworks of work days, work weeks, and work years and (ii) institutionalized calendars biasing expected and actual ages of who is hired, trained, promoted, accommodated, and encouraged to exit. And yet a confluence of demographic, social, technological, and economic forces are upending conventional linear career and exit paths (Moen, 2016; Warner, Hayward, & Hardy, 2010).

The large Boomer cohort (born in the United States from 1946 through 1964, later in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand) is growing older, which, together with reduced fertility and medical advances and lifestyle changes promoting extended life expectancy, has resulted in a historically unprecedented older workforce. This transformation in the age composition of the labor market is taking place in tandem with global economic dislocations, warp-speed digital technology advances automating jobs, and the dismantling of traditional employment and retirement security—a moving platform of multilayered changes.

Considerable scholarship has investigated how older workers are navigating the shifting conditions of work and retirement (Cahill, Giandrea, & Quinn, 2005; Johnson, Mermin, & Resseger, 2011; Ogums, 2012; Sargent, Lee, Martin, & Zikic, 2013). But equally important is the “demand” side of the equation, How are organizations responding to the new demographic realities and projections of an older workforce? Are innovative employers redesigning the lockstep template of work, career, and retirement paths? This involves “institutional work,” defined as purposive actions by people and organizations aimed at “creating, maintaining, and disrupting” the ways things are (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 215).

This study investigates just such institutional work by organizational actors aiming to disrupt existing human resource (HR) templates and create new ones in the face of an older and increasingly retirement-eligible workforce, a demographic transformation occurring in tandem with uncertain global digital economies and unraveling retirement protections and expectations (Wang & Shultz, 2010). We address two questions. How do forward-thinking organizational leaders describe their innovative institutional work? What motivates these transformations? We seek to extend the existing literature on retirement and age-related HR practices by examining in-depth how and why leading organizations in the Minneapolis–St. Paul region are adopting proactive approaches flouting existing age-linked categories and assumptions.

Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

We draw on institutional work, institutional logics, and organizational decision-making theoretical approaches (Aldrich, 2008; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2009; Moen, 2013; Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012; Wooten & Hoffman, 2008) to understand ways innovative employers are responding to their older workforces. Institutional logics are “socially constructed, historical patterns of cultural symbols and material practices, including assumptions, values, and beliefs, by which individuals and organizations provide meaning,” (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008, p. 2). This framing “asks questions about how social choices are shaped, mediated, and channeled by the institutional environment” (Wooten & Hoffman, 2008, p. 130), reminding us that organizations are inherently resistant to change. As Powell (1991, p. 194) points out, attempts to change existing arrangements are often resisted because they threaten actors’ sense of security, increase the cost of information processing, and disrupt routines. Nevertheless, organizations do change in response to external or internal pressures (Aldrich, 2008), reshaping previously taken-for granted but obsolete mindsets and policies (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence et al., 2009; Thornton et al., 2012).

In the latter half of the 20th century, public and corporate logics, policies, and practices cultivated a standardized, age-graded, linear template of continuous full-time work and career building, culminating in a one-time, one-way retirement exit (Moen & Roehling, 2005). However, seniority at an organization no longer translates into job or retirement protections as workers of all ages are laid off (Lippmann, 2008; Marshall, Heinz, Krüger, & Verma, 2001; Sweet & Meiksins, 2013), and many have watched fully funded retirement pensions disappear (Lippmann, 2008; Marshall et al., 2001; Sweet & Moen, 2012). These forces are precipitating both unexpected “early” retirements through buyouts and forced layoffs (Cahill, Giandrea, & Quinn, 2015) and postponed retirement exits for Boomers who cannot afford to retire as well as those who desire to keep working longer (Armstrong-Stassen, 2008; Armstrong-Stassen & Cattaneo, 2010; Leicht & Fitzgerald, 2014; Rix, 2012).

The declining social contract reinforcing lockstep careers and retirements along with increases in life expectancy and the movement of the large Boomer cohort through typical retirement ages have fostered a fundamental mismatch, what Riley, Kahn, and Foner (1994) call “structural lag,” between what many Boomers want or need in this unfolding “encore” adult stage and the outdated institutional logics, policies, and practices shaping the conventional life course (Freedman, 2011; Moen, 2016; Moen & Lam, 2015). Many Boomers continue to draw Social Security at age 62, but the average retirement age is increasing (Johnson, Butrica, & Mommaerts, 2010). Moreover, surveys of Boomers consistently report widespread expectations of continued work in some capacity past traditional retirement ages (e.g., AARP, 2014; Benz, Sedensky, Thompson, & Agiesta, 2013; Brown, Aumannn, Pitt-Catsouphes, Galinsky, & Bond, 2010). Cahill and colleagues (2015) find early Boomers are diverging from previous cohorts by increasingly taking on bridge jobs and also exiting the workforce due to layoffs. Although not the majority, significant numbers of workers are taking on jobs after retiring from their career employment—although capturing these statistics are difficult given multiple definitions and blurry boundaries of retirement (Maestas, 2010; Quinn, 2010). Still, older workers face the challenges of age discrimination and job insecurity (Gee, Pavalko, & Long, 2007; Loretto & White, 2006; Riach, 2007; Roscigno, Mong, Byron, & Tester, 2007; Sweet & Moen, 2012). And age stereotypes contribute to being skipped for promotions and training while receiving unwanted assignments (Benz et al., 2013). Moreover, even though employers may offer phased retirement options, particularly to white-collar workers, older workers may not opt for these plans because the terms of phased retirement do not provide the flexibility, control, pay, and benefits they want (Hutchens & Chen, 2007).

Clearly existing organizational arrangements are at odds with older workers’ preferences for working differently and more flexibly, constraining late career and retirement paths (Johnson, 2011). These mismatches set the stage for organizational change discarding outdated logics and policies limiting older workers’ employment and retirement options (Armstrong-Stassen, 2008; Hedge, Borman, & Lammlein, 2006; Moen, 2016; Peterson & Murphy, 2010; Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costa, 2008; Siegenthaler & Brenner, 2000).

In sum, age-graded institutional logics, policies, and practices are out of date in light of the changing demographic, technological, political, and economic landscape transforming the trajectories of late career/retirement paths as well as older workers’ preferences (Armstrong-Stassen, 2008; Peterson & Murphy, 2010; Siegenthaler & Brenner, 2000). In response, some organizations are reshaping their HR strategies (Mulders, Henkens, & Schippers, 2015). To capture this emergent change process, we draw on qualitative analysis of innovative organizations, interviewing leaders and HR professionals to understand the drivers and motivations for organizational change. How and why are these early adopters engaging in institutional work, disrupting existing practices to adapt to an older workforce?

The Minnesota Case

We strategically sought out innovators in the Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN (Twin Cities) metro region because it is a business environment known for its ground-breaking corporations and nonprofits as well as its educated and skilled workforce. Restricting the geographic focus serves to hold the local labor market and place constant, allowing us to examine organizational innovation within a shared social, political, and economic environment. Minnesota is renowned for its forward-looking ideas and generally progressive political climate (Berg, 2012). The Twin Cities region is a locus of medical, food, financial, and retail industries and a center for research and development in medical, agricultural, and energy technologies (Minneapolis St. Paul Regional, “Innovation and Technology”). In 2014 there were 18 Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Minnesota—the third most per capita (Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, 2014). The Twin Cities metro region also has a robust and active social (nonprofit) sector, including a large number of institutions of higher education. There is an effective network of advocacy and philanthropic organizations leading in adopting new evaluation and accountability initiatives (Bies, 2001; Pratt & Spencer, 2000). Minnesota is among the top 20 states in the proportion of its population who are Boomers (26%), and its proportion of older residents is expected to grow over the next 15 years—a challenge employers and policymakers are beginning to address (Gillaspy & McMurry, 2011; Helmstetter & Tigan, 2014).

Design and Methods

To capture the nuances of organizational change and workplace practices, we draw on interpretive methodology, garnering insights from in-depth interviews with key informants in 23 leading organizations (11 private-sector firms, 4 government agencies, and 8 nonprofits) located in the Twin Cities region. We selected firms based on their recognition for innovation (i.e., recipients of Sloan Award for Excellence in Workplace Effectiveness and Flexibility and Forbes’ list of top employers), reputation, and recommendations by knowledgeable informants. In our purposive sample of organizations, we sought theoretically meaningful variations in industry, sector, and size—prior research on HR age-related practices has documented differences by size and industry (Mulders et al., 2015). We also sought organizations with significant numbers of Boomer employees (aged 50–69 years at the time), focusing particularly on industries like public administration and education with a comparatively large proportion of Boomers (Adler & Hilber, 2009).

Our interviews were primarily with HR managers and other top leaders knowledgeable about existing and emerging employment policies and their effectiveness. To increase reliability, we sought different perspectives through interviews with multiple organizational representatives when possible (12 organizations), either in multiperson or separate interviews. These semi-structured conversations lasted around one and a half hours and were directed by a consistent set of pertinent topics as well as follow-up and organizationally specific questions. We asked questions about how and when specific policies and informal arrangements were adopted, perceptions of older workers, effectiveness of policies, and how informants perceived their organizations’ approaches to older workers. Most interviews were conducted with at least two of the authors present, permitting us to compare notes and impressions. We also triangulated data by reviewing company documents and employee handbooks, conducting field visits of workplaces at five organizations and interviewing Boomer employees at four of the organizations. All participants signed informed consent forms, and the individuals and organizations were given anonymity to ensure that they could be candid and reduce concerns about economic or legal implications.

Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and Atlas.ti software was used to facilitate qualitative content analysis—a systematic process of analyzing the meanings of textual data by categorizing data into theoretically meaningful categories and themes (Franzosi, 2008; Krippendorff, 1980; Weber, 1985). We coded transcripts for dominant themes and key policies in an iterative process of deductively applying concepts based on previous research and inductively finding emergent themes in order to refine analytical categories (Weber, 1985; Weiss, 1995). Analysis was guided by a theoretically driven focus on (i) innovative policies challenging existing temporal and age-graded templates, particularly around flexibility, training, and alternative retirement exits, (ii) how informants described the value of older workers for their organizations, and (iii) the challenges of and motivations for such organizational change. We used deductive codes to identify relevant policies found in other research, such as telework, flexible work, phased retirement, and training programs, and inductively found important themes of age-neutral policies, concerns about age discrimination, and the value of older workers. Our unit of analysis was themes or distinct ideas, varying from one phrase to many sentences. We analyzed transcripts for details about workplace policies but also the language interviewees used and the explicit and implicit motivations and contextual meanings. By moving back and forth between different organizational interviews, we developed categories across the organizations and created summary profiles for policies at each organization. We created tables of policies at each organization to assess variations across for-profit, nonprofit, and public employers, as well as by organizational size. The three authors separately reviewed transcripts and compared coding to reach consensus and enhance the reliability and dependability of our results. We report emblematic quotes and examples indicative of the central themes.

Results

In our purposive sample of organizations in Minnesota, we find patterned institutional work, that is, transformations in organizational mindsets and strategies in order to retain and attract the state’s large population of Boomers (Table 1). As have other researchers (Mulders et al., 2015), we identified several key age-related efforts around early retirement, more flexible ways of exiting and rehiring retirees, as well as age-integrative innovations around more flexible working conditions, part-time work in core jobs, informal scaling back, and broadly targeted training. The organizations in our study describe responding to recent shifts in demographics, particularly large numbers of retirement-age employees, upending existing age-graded workplace norms and experimenting with new policies and practices over the past 2–6 years. We see these same pockets of innovation in large, small, and medium-size organizations in all sectors—private, public, and social. The new practices do not easily fit into existing, taken-for-granted, rigid HR and age-driven logics assuming work occurs exclusively at the workplace, dedicated workers put in long hours, and older workers are on their way out. We detected four themes around innovative practices challenging existing mindsets about the clocks and calendars of work. Although these practices are not entirely new, they are still not the norm for how work is organized and are not typically framed in response to an aging workforce.

Table 1.

Organizational Practices for an Older Workforce

Sector	n	Formal flex work policies	Informal flex work policies	Part-time core Jobs	Formal phased retirement	Informal scaling back options	Rehire retirees	Training for all age workers
For-Profit	11	6 (55%)	2 (18%)	6 (55%)	1 (9%)	3 (27%)	7 (64%)	7 (64%)
Nonprofit	8	6 (75%)	1 (13%)	8 (100%)	2 (25%)	6 (75%)	8 (100%)	7 (88%)
Public	4	4 (100%)	0 (0%)	4 (100%)	2 (50%)	2 (50%)	4 (100%)	2 (50%)
Total	23	16 (70%)	3 (13%)	18 (78%)	5 (22%)	11 (48%)	19 (83%)	16 (70%)

Flexibility Strategies

Often, but not always, in response to the pressures of older workers, most of the organizations in our study (16; 70%) have adopted some form of flexibility that permits employees to schedule when and sometimes where they work, although this is not always a formal policy. Informants describe their organizations as using new technologies to redesign jobs in order to make them less physically difficult and less dependent on employees being at the workplace for set times. Some employers have embraced flexibility and telework as ways of reimagining workspaces and processes. For example, a large retail organization has redesigned the physical workspace of its headquarters to promote mobile working and allow telecommuting 2 days per week, which, according to our informants, has increased morale, reduced turnover, and drastically reduced operating costs.

When organizations offering flexibility make it available to all workers (sometimes only with the approval of their supervisors, however), Boomers clearly benefit. This is an example of an age-integrated innovation that keeps older workers on the job. For instance, the mobile program at the large retail company (designed to reduce costs, not support older workers) was surprisingly popular with their older workforce:

The program was reinventing the workspace itself and then also creating an environment where mobile and flexible work was socially accepted. I had thought that older workers just wouldn’t really be interested in that, that is was more of a thing that would appeal to younger workers and I was very wrong about that.

Interviews with Boomer employees at this corporation revealed how after initial skepticism they adapted to these changes in work organization and were enjoying the flexibility of telework, especially given what were often long hours.

Phased Exit/Scaling Back Strategies

We find traditional retirement logics (such as retirement being a one-way, total exit, occurring once workers are retirement eligible) are being cast aside by participating organizations opening up opportunities for workers to scale back rather than having to retire all at once. Organization representatives find this keeps older workers engaged on their own terms, as well as providing them a way to mentor the next generation and transfer important local knowledge. These policies are becoming increasingly important as many organizations have a large group of retirement-eligible employees who have long tenure at the organization. Note, however, that most of the participating organizations have not adopted formal phased retirement policies. Only five have formal programs they identify with the terminology of “phased retirement.” Yet what became clear through our conversations was that many of the participating organizations offer a range of pathways for older employees to gradually transition to fewer demands, new types of work, and in other ways delay their exits. Moreover, these practices are not age related and are not necessarily identified with formal programs. At 18 (78%) of the organizations, it is possible for employees of all ages in core positions to work part time, and 8 (35%) organizations have low minimum hours for receiving benefits. This is key for older (as well as younger) employees worried about losing health insurance and retirement savings programs should they scale back their hours.

We find these leading organizations recognize the rising proportion of their workforce that is retirement eligible and are actively engaging in institutional work to retain valued older workers’ skills and knowledge. Reducing job demands and hours permits older employees to transfer their knowledge while also adjusting to working less. For example, one of the health care organizations we studied switches people to particular projects and has institutionalized scaling back practices as a way of retaining workers of all ages:

I have seen a lot of instances where, rather than even going to a different role or retiring cold-turkey, they have stayed on but just as kind of a “special projects” person. So we retain their knowledge—we continue to leverage that, but it is in a more focused role and from their standpoint more limited “hours.”

Scaling back can also make work more meaningful and attractive. An HR professional at a county agency describes how older workers are able to focus on the rewarding aspects of work through phased transitions. “The people who I know who are in this gradual retirement just love it, because it’s as if they can do the things they like best about their job.”

These HR professionals do not name these practices as formal phased retirement programs and are wary about even broaching the topic of retirement with their retirees because of concerns about age discrimination. Yet, once workers raise the issue, informants describe considerable organizational assistance to aid employees in planning their transitions. Openness to discussing retirement also allows employees and managers to develop plans for replacing older workers, diminishing disruptions to the organization and allowing workers to shift their job responsibilities.

(Re)Hiring Older Workers/Retirees

Organizations are also engaging in institutional work by creating new labor pools in the form of hiring retirees—either their own retirees or those retired from other organizations. These practices allow Boomers to both take on new roles and work fewer hours, even as organizations benefit from skilled and experienced workers. In 19 (83%) of the organizations we investigated, their own retirees are being rehired, often on a contract or project basis. For example, one higher education institution crafts engaging work assignments to appeal to retirees. A representative from a nonprofit service provider expresses the rationale for valuing older workers and hiring retirees:

We are looking for that maturity because of what we have seen and how important that is to have the ability to put a client at ease before they get here.

This organization recognizes that older workers’ job and life experiences enhance their ability to connect with clients. Representatives from several organizations report they regularly hire their retirees to work as contractors or to help train replacements. These organizations are able to tap into the talent of older workers and pass on knowledge while providing meaningful and flexible work.

These employers also bring on older skilled workers on a temporary basis. We interviewed representatives from several innovative temp agency organizations that facilitate links between Boomers and employers, providing access to a vetted temporary talent pool. For the older job seeker, these brokers alleviate the stress of finding and coordinating contracts and projects, particularly for those who have been out of the job market for a while and are uncertain about how to either articulate their skills or navigate job networks. For example, one temp agency places former CEOs and executives in interim leadership positions.

Training Older as Well as Younger Workers

Research shows many organizations fail to train their older workforce, assuming those who are retirement eligible are either slow learners or else will soon be out the door (Brooke & Taylor, 2005; Karpinska, Henkens, & Schippers, 2013; Maurer & Rafuse, 2001). However, most of the leading organizations in our study (70%) now engage their older workers in training and professional development as a matter of course. There organizations have a culture of developing employees and providing internal career opportunities. Professional development and education reimbursement programs promote older workers’ job satisfaction, allowing them to continue to learn, build their skills, and even take on new jobs offering the chance to use different talents (Leppel, Brucker & Cochran, 2012). Consider the comments by one representative from an environmental nonprofit:

We see that the institutional knowledge that is retained with our older workforce is a huge asset and we don’t take that for granted. And so we help people to develop and be retrained even if they are not looking for upward advancement because we are innovative.

This nonprofit sees Boomers as an asset, noting that helping them develop and find engaging work is part of a larger institutional logic of investing in all employees.

A small education consulting company distinguishes itself, making it an attractive place to work, through its commitment to developing and providing resources to their older workforce. As the HR Director describes:

And retention, I mean we encourage everyone to develop professionally, always. So nobody is held back. I know of some colleagues that work for companies that say, ‘oh well, our older workers don’t get the professional development opportunities that the younger workers do’ and that is an issue in HR. We don’t have those limitations here.

The HR Director, who herself is earning her PhD while working full time, acknowledges the perception of limited opportunities for mature workers in other organizations and sees their inclusive professional development policies as a way to foster hiring, engagement, and retention.

Several leading employers in our study incorporate training and development as part of their succession planning strategies. A utility company uses data analytics to anticipate retirement clusters and then strategically intervenes to increase retention and knowledge transfer. This company joined forces with a technical college to craft a training curriculum that prepares graduates (including Boomers) for jobs in their industry. Combining workforce analytics, succession planning, and employee training allows employers to proactively build talent pipelines to meet emerging needs.

Discussion

Most studies of the aging workforce focus either on population demography or on the experiences of individuals, but missing from these macro and micro levels of analysis are meso-level studies of innovative organizations doing the institutional work necessary to respond to their older and increasingly retirement-eligible workforces (Mulders et al., 2015). However, it is often at the organizational level that changes in how work is organized need to, and can, happen (Conen, Henkens, & Schippers, 2014; Hardy, 2011; Moen, 2016).

Both employers and employees are operating within a web of existing, often out-of-date institutional logics. These age-biased norms and assumptions constrain their ability to respond to their older employees’ needs and preferences, as well as their capacity to draw on the talent of their retirees (Johnson, 2011). According to a Society for Human Resource Management (2014) survey, only about a third of employers (36%) are preparing for workforce shifts by examining their policies and practices, with only 6% of employers surveyed reporting they have implemented specific policies to prepare for aging workforces. Most employers don’t consider new ways of organizing work and instead retain the one-size-fits-all full-time work and full-time retirement lockstep (Armstrong-Stassen, 2008; Peterson & Murphy, 2010; Riley et al., 1994).

However, we show that some organizations are actively engaging in institutional work around this challenge, discarding conventional age-based logics and procedures while simultaneously pioneering formal and informal ways of retaining, training, and hiring older workers. These innovators are driven by both business decisions and organizational approaches to workforce management, recognizing the value of this important talent pool.

Leading Organizations

We find the new logics to be organized around age-neutral more than age-related norms and assumptions, with uniform reluctance to separate out older workers for special policies. Instead, most of the institutional work we identified and what our informants invariably emphasize are options available to all their workers to work more flexibly, scale back to part-time demands and hours, shift jobs, and get training or professional development. This seems to be tied to concerns about age discrimination, which Johnson (2011) contends can be a barrier to programs like phased retirement for older workers. Policies targeted exclusively to older workers can also be costlier and more time consuming for organizations to implement compared with age-neutral policies because targeting requires time and resources to develop, implement, and manage separate policies for a select group of workers. What we found especially promising is the openness to hiring workers of all ages, especially for temporary or contract jobs, but also for standard positions. This includes one necessarily age-related strategy, rehiring one’s own retirees.

Although the leading organizations we studied do not identify their institutional work as directed at older workers, they are developing an institutional logic valuing all workers, regardless of age, and are aware that implementing age-neutral policies for flexible work and job shifting make the workplace more hospitable to their growing older workforces. This also points to the universality of the types of options Boomers want. More flexibility and possibilities for not-so-big jobs appeal to workers of all ages and life stages seeking or needing to scale back for a time (Moen, 2007; Timmons, Hall, Fesko, & Migliore, 2011), even as training increases the skills of all workers regardless of age.

Who Changes and Why?

From our observations, innovations appear to be driven by organizational cultures as well as economic and workforce demands making retention and recruitment of older employees a financial imperative (Lee, McNamara, & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2012). As Ollier-Malaterre and colleagues (2013) argue, competitive pressures as well as (old and new) institutional logics shape the adoption of policies for older workers. We also find a mix of strategic decision making, business calculations, cultural norms among peer institutions, and public policies shapes adoption of age-related policies. We see evidence of increasing concern about the possibility of knowledge and skill loss due to an aging workforce, which appears, as Lee and colleagues (2012) find in a survey of U.S. businesses, to be connected to their broader focus on labor market and economic trends (outward pressures) as well as analysis of internal demographics and workforce needs (internal pressures). However, the organizations in our study also weathered the recession relatively well and are not in dire financial straits, possibly increasing their openness to new approaches or tamping down concerns about the higher costs of older, long-tenured employees.

We find innovative organizations large and small in the Twin Cities, but their changing practices vary by size. Smaller organizations (less than 25 employees) tend to be more adaptive and responsive to the particular needs of individual Boomer employees. Larger organizations often institute formal policies and programs made possible, as well as necessary, because of the organization’s size. For example, many large nonprofits and businesses regularly use voluntary part-time employees and offer options for workers to switch to less demanding roles. Several smaller employers have a more personalized institutional logic aimed at addressing the needs of individuals, rather than adopting formal flexibility policies. Yet, practices that aren’t formalized may lead to accommodations only for those workers deemed valuable or with close relationships with management, rather than fundamental shifts in age-neutral hiring and training practices as well as flexible ways of working. Still, despite variations in size and industry, the organizations we studied do share elements of organizational culture that lead them to embrace new ideas and policies, and to strive for being “good” employers. Timmons and colleagues’ (2011) case study of 18 leading U.S. companies found that organizational culture influences the development of formal and informal strategies to retain older workers. Similarly, we find the organizations in our sample nurture cultures of trust, openness, autonomy, and flexibility—values and practices attractive to older as well as younger workers. We do see an emerging logic valuing workers of all ages. A common theme in our interviews with HR leaders is a commitment to retaining employees regardless of age and many offer “good” jobs with benefits, decent pay, union representation, and positive work environments, indicative of Frerichs, Lindley, Aleksandrowicz, Baldauf, and Galloway’s (2012) finding that European companies aiming to be model employers also tend to accommodate senior employees.

A supportive workplace culture appears to be related to leadership styles and priorities, especially in small to medium-size organizations, and we find a connection between positive attitudes toward and experiences with older workers and innovative policies, as did Lee and colleagues (2012) and Loretto and White (2006). Across our sample of organizations, we find employers appreciating the contributions and needs of older workers as part of a less rigid and open approach to management and organizational structure. In contrast to prevailing stereotypes (Karpinska et al., 2013), leaders in these organizations have developed an institutional logic defining older workers as key contributors who remain productive.

Another prevailing logic is defining older workers as a competitive advantage. The HR leaders we interviewed recognize the costs of replacing older experienced workers and the benefits of allowing them to phase out or move to bridge jobs, extending both their tenure and time for transferring knowledge and transitioning staff into new roles. Many participating organizations carefully analyze and track their workforce demographics and requirements, indicative of Lee, McNamara, and Pitt-Catsouphes’ (2012) finding that employers who analyze workforce needs are more likely to have proactive policies.

The Twin City nonprofit, social service, and health care organizations we investigated see older workers as key to their missions and serving their clients. The fairly progressive practices of health care and educational organizations might be due to the values and norms of those industries but also the importance of accumulated knowledge and the particularly acute shortage of younger trained workers. Social service agencies, health care providers, museums, and schools all rely on the experiences of older workers as well as their abilities to interact well with clients, customers, and the broader public. We find the health care organizations in our study to be especially attuned to the need for new, less age-graded logics and more flexible, responsive ways of working (Mountford, 2013).

Implications and Future Research

Our interviews suggest several important challenges to conventional policies, programs, and practices. Investing in talent and knowledge acquisition and retention is a key 21st century business challenge requiring 21st century solutions. The rigidities associated with standardized work practices seem to push Boomers out of the workforce; underscoring the importance of the flexibilities we found in the organizations we studied. What we show is the importance of organizational, not simply public, policy change. We agree with Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury (2012) on the need for research on the frames driving innovation and to understand shifting organizational processes. Yet, the policies and practices for engaging older workers are not necessarily distinct and separate from the practices that workers of all ages desire and that can create healthy, productive, and equitable workplaces.

Another key challenge is rethinking the concept of career development to include and better deal with the preferences and needs of older workers. Retirement from one’s full-time, primary career job can no longer be assumed to occur when older workers are “retirement eligible” according to organizational policy.

The degree of older workers’ control and autonomy in making decisions about continuing work longer is essential. Being compelled, due to finances or the need for benefits, to keep working may have negative health, social and productivity consequences (Moen 2016; Peterson & Murphy, 2010). On the other hand, being pushed to retire due to a lack of accommodations or downsizing also leads to negative outcomes. The high-road is to provide Boomers with voluntary options and ways to control how they organize their time, but the low-road may mean increased pressure to keep working without transforming how work is organized. There also remains a concern about equitable access to these policies for all types of workers, given that Boomers with less authority, education, and prestige may have less access, contributing to new sources of inequality (Hardy, 2008, 2011).

Our study has several limitations. We did not study any companies in high-tech, creative or communications industries that may place a premium on young workers with new types of skills. Organizations with fewer older workers may be less responsive than those in our study (van Dalen, Henkens, & Wang, 2014). Our small sample size does not allow us to make broader claims about Minnesota or U.S. employers in general.

Future research should develop case studies of organizations in different geographic areas and industries and examine both innovative and traditional organizations. In-depth qualitative studies of organizations are helpful for studying shifting processes and practices that cannot be fully captured in survey data, although surveys of organizations are needed to capture broader changes and trends in employment practices. Examining organizations with traditional, rigid, or other “outdated” retirement and age-targeted policies would be productive for understanding the barriers to change and how these policies impact older workers in those organizations. Comparative research could provide understanding of how and why organizations change and respond to changing circumstances.

Funding

This research was supported by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota, as well as with funds from the McKnight Foundation for the first author’s Presidential Chair. It was also supported by the Minnesota Population Center through an NICHD grant (#R24HD041023). The Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences provided the first author with the important time and space to complete the writing. We wish to thank those we interviewed and Jane Peterson for her assistance.