The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm

Workforce age profile effects Effects of

workforce age
on job resources, work engagement profile

and organizational
citizenship behavior
Liwen Zhang Received 24 February 2020
Management, University of New South Wales – Kensington Campus, Revised 30 September 2020
26 October 2020
Sydney, Australia, and Accepted 28 December 2020

Elaine Farndale
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The issue of age in organizations has become increasingly salient given expanding age profiles,
from millennials to baby boomers. The purpose of this article is to improve the understanding of how age
affects individuals’ work-related attitudes and behaviors, the authors take a life span perspective to investigate
how age profiles moderate the relationship between job resources and work engagement and organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB).
Design/methodology/approach – The authors collected responses from 270 employees of multinational
firms operating in India and conducted multiple regression analyses to examine the hypotheses.
Findings – The authors found that age profiles are significant predictors of work engagement. Specifically, the
relationship between development opportunities and work engagement was stronger for younger employees
than for older employees. However, age profiles were neither positively related to OCB nor a moderator of the
job resources–OCB relationship.
Originality/value – The findings provide empirical evidence of the life span perspective, suggesting that age
profiles influence work engagement. This is pertinent for organizations offering employees development
opportunities to enhance work engagement.
Keywords Age profiles, Job resources, Work engagement, Organizational citizenship behavior
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In modern society, people are living much longer than previously, giving rise to age profiles
as a salient factor in organizations (Thomas et al., 2014). A recent report by the US Census
Bureau (2016) showed that the global population continues to increase at an unprecedented
rate. It projects that the number of people who are aged 65 years and over will grow from
around 617 million in 2015 to 1.6 billion in 2050. Further, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics
(2013) estimates that workers aged 55 years and over will make up approximately 25.6% of
the labor force by 2022, compared to 20.9% in 2012. Understanding the role of age profiles in
organizational contexts has, therefore, become increasingly critical to manage the workforce
effectively (Fineman, 2014).
This study focuses on chronological age profiles, which reflect the changes individuals
experience over time in certain characteristics such as cognitive abilities (Kanfer and
Ackerman, 2004). According to the life-span theory of control (LSC), individuals experience
changes in their intelligence, values, affect and interests in life as they grow older
(Heckhausen and Schulz, 1995; Heckhausen et al., 2010). These changes are associated with
their development goals (e.g. job promotion), which further have an impact on how
Personnel Review
The authors would like to acknowledge the Change Management Consortium based at the University of © Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
Bath in the UK for their efforts in data collection for this study. DOI 10.1108/PR-02-2020-0095
PR individuals allocate limited resources (e.g. energy, time) to handle those changes. Extant
studies provide empirical evidence for the life span perspectives. For instance, Kooij et al.’s
(2010) meta-analysis found that the impact of maintenance human resource management
practices that help employees maintain current performance (e.g. performance feedback) on
job satisfaction strengthens at an older age, whereas the effect of development practices that
help achieve better performance (e.g. training and development) on job satisfaction
strengthens at a younger age.
Truxillo et al. (2012) applied life span development theories in conjunction with the job
demands-resources (JD-Rs) model and other motivation perspectives to propose a theoretical
framework regarding how to allocate job resources to employees across age profiles to
promote their job attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, they proposed that age differentiates
individuals’ preferences for resources at work (such as whether they like to receive
performance feedback) as well as their job attitudes and behaviors.
There is, however, little evidence on how age profiles relate to job resources to further
employee attitudes and behavior, which are important components of Truxillo et al.’s (2012)
framework. This is important to investigate as limited empirical evidence constrains our
understanding of the application of LSC in organizational contexts. To address this issue, we
focus on the interactive effects of age and job resources (performance feedback, autonomy,
development opportunities and task variety) on work engagement and organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB).
Our study contributes to the literature in two primary ways. First, it provides empirical
evidence for Truxillo et al.’s (2012) theoretical framework by examining how age profiles
relate to job resources to further work engagement and OCB. This enhances our
understanding of how factors associated with age affect individual attitudes and behavior
in the workplace. Second, the aging workforce is a global challenge, however to date, most
research has been conducted in Western countries (Truxillo et al., 2015). Our examination of
age profiles using an Indian sample may help understand the impact of age profiles in
countries and cultures where our understanding is more limited.

Job resources and work engagement

Work engagement refers to “a positive, fulfilling, and work-related state of mind that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). It reflects
how individuals are involved with a job physically, emotionally and cognitively (Christian
et al., 2011). Work engagement has three dimensions, including vigor (levels of energy and
mental resilience at work, and the willingness and ability to invest effort in one’s work),
dedication (levels of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge) and
absorption (being fully focused and happily engrossed in one’s work). Engaged employees
are energetic and resilient, are likely to accept challenging tasks, and demonstrate a strong
desire to perform well. Research has shown that work engagement is positively related to
outcome variables such as job satisfaction and job performance (Christian et al., 2011).
Job resources are defined as “physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of
the job that help achieve work goals, and/or reduce job demands, and/or stimulate personal
growth and learning” (Demerouti et al., 2001, p. 501). The JD-R model suggests that job
characteristics can be divided into two categories: job resources and job demands (Bakker
and Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2014). Excessive job demands (such as a high workload)
are related to burnout through a health impairment process, whereas increased job resources
(such as autonomy) are associated with work engagement through a motivational process.
Job resources trigger a motivational process through fulfilling work goals and basic employee
psychological needs for learning and autonomy, for example, which then motivate employees
to engage more at work (Bakker et al., 2014).
 In this study, we focus on four job resources that have been identified as either increasing Effects of
engagement among employees or – when lacking – increasing burnout: performance workforce age
feedback, autonomy, development opportunities and task variety. We describe each resource
and their link to work engagement and OCB, respectively, before theorizing the moderating
profile
role of age profiles.
Performance feedback refers to the information managers provide regarding aspects of
their employees’ job performance (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996, p. 255). It highlights the most
important job tasks or the tasks that need more attention, and thus guides employees to
adjust their efforts to complete the tasks successfully (Findley et al., 2000).
Development opportunities are resources that help enhance knowledge and skills, leading
to potential career advancements. Examples of opportunities include training, mentoring
programs and leadership development programs. The opportunities often comprise
developmental tasks and goals, which motivate individuals to strive to achieve these tasks
and goals (Cross and Markus, 1991).
Autonomy reflects the extent to which individuals can self-determine their work-related
behaviors through mechanisms such as schedule arrangements and decision-making
(Truxillo et al., 2012; Ryan, 1991). Autonomy allows employees to have control over their
work, take initiative and responsibility, and have freedom in determining what alternative
approaches are effective in completing their work.
Task variety reflects situations in which employees perform different tasks in a job
(Christian et al., 2011), requiring them to apply a set of knowledge, skills and abilities. Varied
tasks require multiple skills, abilities and sets of knowledge, enhancing a job’s complexity.
The variety involved in a job increases work interest and fosters career development (Bakker,
2015; Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006).
Overall, we propose that the four job resources – performance feedback, development
opportunities, autonomy and task variety – will be positively related to work engagement
Figure 1 presents the proposed conceptual model for this study.

Job Resources Workforce Age

Profiles

Performance
feedback
Work
engagement
Development
opportunities

Autonomy
OCB

Figure 1.
A model of job
Task variety resources, work
engagement and OCB
moderated by
workforce age profiles
PR According to the JD-R model, the presence of job resources triggers a motivational process
(Salanova et al., 2005; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). As a job resource (Bakker and Demerouti,
2007), performance feedback fosters employees’ desire to learn, achieve and become
competent (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). Constructive feedback identifies discrepancies
between expectations and actual performance and provides suggestions for potential
improvements, which motivate employees to learn lessons from past experiences and develop
relevant knowledge and skills (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996).
Similarly, development opportunities satisfy individual basic needs for learning and
growth, enhance employees’ positive work attitudes, and thus encourage employees to
engage at work (Demerouti et al., 2001). The presence of development opportunities evokes a
sense of significance, such that employees feel valued by their organizations and become
optimistic about their career (e.g. Bakker et al., 2012). Task variety requires employees to
apply a variety of knowledge, skills and abilities to complete work goals, which eventually
helps employees become more competent.
The support job resources provide in achieving work goals also helps to trigger the
motivational process (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). For example, autonomy allows
employees to have control over their job and have an impact on their work environment.
Employees with autonomy, therefore, tend to believe that they have challenging work goals
and potential career advancement opportunities, which encourage them to engage in a series
of behaviors (such as establishing plans) to achieve the goals and take advantage of potential
possibilities (Zacher et al., 2010).
Taken together, we thus hypothesize that:
H1a. Performance feedback is positively related to work engagement.
H1b. Development opportunities are positively related to work engagement.
H1c. Autonomy is positively related to work engagement.
H1d. Task variety is positively related to work engagement.

Job resources and OCB

OCB refers to “behaviors that contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of the social
and psychological context that supports task performance” (Organ, 1997, p. 91). OCB
involves behaviors beyond the minimum requirements of job tasks, including helping
behaviors (such as voluntarily helping colleagues handle work challenges), sportsmanship
behaviors (such as sacrificing personal interest for the good of group) and organizational
loyalty behaviors (such as promoting the organizations to outsiders).
Similar to its impact on work engagement, job resources positively impact employee OCB
through a motivational process that encourages employees to engage in reciprocal behavior.
Whereas job demands such as work stressors diminish loyalty to the organization and
consequently OCB (Pooja et al., 2016), based on the goal-setting theory, job resources such as
performance feedback allow employees to have greater clarity and more challenging goals,
consequently leading to them putting forth greater effort into positive workplace social
behaviors (Vigoda-Gadot and Angert, 2007).
The advantages of development opportunities have also been found to extend beyond
individual skill improvements, including greater opportunities for promotion and reward
which contribute to improved performance (Pierce and Maurer, 2009), hence being associated
with higher OCB. Similarly, autonomy allows employees to make decisions at work, which
creates a sense of meaningfulness, competence, self-organization and trust (Thakre and
Mathew, 2020). This helps to create a supportive working environment and oblige employees
to engage readily in OCB (Park, 2016). Finally, task variety has been found to be positively
associated with OCB (Maric et al., 2019), as challenging and enriched jobs spur proactive work Effects of
behavior due to high levels of intrinsic motivation (Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008). workforce age
Thus, we hypothesize that:
profile
H2a. Performance feedback is positively related to OCB.
H2b. Development opportunities are positively related to OCB.
H2c. Autonomy is positively related to OCB.
H2d. Task variety is positively related to OCB.

Workforce age profiles

We apply LSC theorizing to examine how workforce age profiles influence the effects of job
resources on work engagement and OCB. LSC highlights the importance of age in influencing
individual motivation, attitudes and behaviors (Heckhausen and Schulz, 1995; Heckhausen
et al., 2010; Kanfer and Ackerman, 2004; Truxillo et al., 2012). Loss and growth are two major
patterns of development over time (Kanfer and Ackerman, 2004). Loss refers to the negative
relationship between age and abilities because of declining fluid intelligence including
cognitive abilities. Older employees whose fluid intelligence is declining may prefer resources
that help avoid loss such as being laid off. Growth refers to the positive relationship between
age and resources associated with increased crystallized intelligence such as experiential
knowledge. Younger employees who have limited crystallized intelligence tend to value
resources that are beneficial for their growth and career promotion.
According to LSC, development goals change by age profiles and as a result, the
investments and strategies toward achieving those goals change accordingly (Heckhausen
and Schulz, 1995; Heckhausen et al., 2010). To strive for goals, individuals apply either
primary control (behaviors that are directed at the external world and tend to make changes
in the environment) or secondary control (behaviors that focus on the inner world and attempt
to optimize resources to achieve primary control). For instance, younger adults demonstrate
stronger needs for growth and career development and engage, therefore, more in primary
control, whereas older adults are motivated by resources related to accomplishment,
enjoyment and current skill utilization and rely, therefore, more on secondary control (Kooij
et al., 2011). This suggests that age profile differences are associated with work behavior.
Extant research has shown, for instance, that the positive relationship between satisfaction
with coworkers and work engagement is stronger for younger employees than for older
employees (Avery et al., 2007). Further, younger employees who trust their management team
are more likely to demonstrate OCB than older employees who also trust the team (Wagner
and Rush, 2000).
Taken together, this theorizing suggests that employee preferences for job resources may
shift in life, leading to an impact on the positive effect of job resources on job-related behavior.

Job resources, age profiles and work outcomes

A job resource is perceived as growth-oriented if its later provision will benefit career growth
(Lyons et al., 2009). Performance feedback is a resource associated with work-related rewards
or promotion. Younger employees optimize their job performance to obtain career growth-
oriented goals, whereas older employees tend to be persistent in maintaining compensation
for losses in the same job tasks (Freund, 2006). We posit that performance feedback that
identifies the knowledge and skills to improve career development may motivate younger
employees to engage at work and demonstrate OCB more than it may motivate older
employees.
PR H3. The positive relationship between performance feedback and work engagement/
OCB will be moderated by age profile, being stronger at a younger rather than
older age.
According to LSC (Heckhausen et al., 2010), older individuals are constrained by time, ability
and energy. They shift their goals from growth to avoidance of losses. Due to the declining
cognitive ability, older employees may need more time and energy than younger employees
to reach the same goals, especially when the goals are related to learning new skills (Zacher
et al., 2010). Even after extensive training, older employees may not perform new tasks as well
as younger employees (Heckhausen et al., 2010). Thus, maintaining current levels of
functioning and avoiding age-related losses may be more attractive to older employees than
career achievements. Consequently, different from younger employees who desire goals that
stretch their competency, older employees may prefer goals that avoid them being perceived
as incompetent (De Lange et al., 2010). We, therefore, expect that training and development
opportunities that often involve learning new knowledge and skills are less attractive to older
employees than to younger employees (Kooij et al., 2011).
H4. The positive relationship between development opportunities and work
engagement/OCB will be moderated by age profile, being stronger at a younger
rather than older age.
We propose that age profile may differentiate individual desires for autonomy and further
vary the positive effects of autonomy on work engagement and OCB. For one, autonomy
provides employees opportunity to express and attain psychological motives, which are
attractive to individuals who rely on secondary control (Kooij et al., 2011). According to LSC,
older adults apply secondary control to adjust to fit the environment more than younger
adults (Heckhausen and Schulz, 1995; Heckhausen et al., 2010). Furthermore, jobs with
autonomy often involve responsibilities and creativity, which older employees value greatly
in their work environment (Hansen and Leuty, 2011). Therefore, when given autonomy, we
expect older employees may be more motivated to engage at work and reciprocate positively
toward the organization than younger employees.
H5. The positive relationship between autonomy and work engagement/OCB will be
moderated by age profile, being stronger at an older rather than younger age.
Finally, jobs with varied tasks involve utilizing multiple sets of knowledge, skills and
abilities, contributing job complexity. Task variety add a series of new and challenging tasks
to the job, which may increase job complexity and require higher levels of fluid intelligence.
LSC suggests that age may impact how well employees perform complex tasks (Kliegl et al.,
2003). Dealing with complex jobs, older employees who face the challenge of declining fluid
intelligence (Heckhausen et al., 2010) may, therefore, need to invest more resources than
younger employees to maintain the same level of performance. In line with this reasoning,
Richter and colleagues (2015) found that younger, rather than older, employees care more
about job features such as having an interesting job, which involves a high degree of variety
in job content. Thus, this suggests that older employees may not welcome the increased task
variety to the same extent as younger employees.
H6. The positive relationship between task variety and work engagement/OCB will be
moderated by age profile, being stronger at a younger rather than older age.

Method
Participants and procedure
Data were collected from a diverse group of employees across two large European
multinational companies operating in India, one in the chemicals industry and the other, an
engineering and manufacturing firm. Data were collected across eight sites, each in different Effects of
geographic locations across India and from different business units within the workforce age
multinationals. Study participants had to (1) be employed for at least one year (to have
experience in an annual performance feedback review) and (2) be able to complete a survey in
profile
English (which was the working language of the companies and is taught widely in India). All
employees who met the inclusion criteria received a study invitation email; a follow-up email
was sent one week after the first contact to encourage responses. In total, 657 eligible
employees were invited to participate, and 353 employees replied (response rate: 54%). 83
participants failed to complete the entire survey, resulting in a total of 270 complete
responses. Of the 270 participants, 92.2% were male, 59.3% had worked for the organization
for five years or more, and 80% of participants were middle or senior managers. 14.4% of the
participants were aged between 20 and 29 years, 49.3% between 30 and 39 years, 26.3%
between 40 and 49 years and 10% were aged 50 years or over.

Measures
Workforce age profiles. Following the prior research (e.g. Ang et al., 1993; Innocenti et al.,
2013), we used a self-report measure that included four age profiles (1 5 20–29, 2 5 30–39,
3 5 40–49 and 4 5 50 years or over).
Job resources. Performance feedback, autonomy and development opportunities were
measured on a scale in which 1 5 strongly disagree and 5 5 strongly agree. Performance
feedback was measured using Patterson et al.’s (2005) 5-item scale. An example item is
“People’s performance is measured on a regular basis” (α 5 0.72). Development opportunities
were measured with a 6-item scale adopted from Van Veldhoven and Dorenbosch (2008). An
example item is “My job offers me opportunities for personal growth and development”
(α 5 0.89). Autonomy was measured with a 3-item scale adopted from Patterson et al. (2005)
(α 5 0.76). An example item is “Line managers keep too tight on a rein on the way things are
done around here” (reverse coded). Task variety was measured with a 3-item scale adopted
from Van Veldhoven and Dorenbosch’s (2008) scale in which 1 5 never and 4 5 always. An
example item is “My work is varied” (α 5 0.72).
Work engagement. We used the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale developed by
Schaufeli et al. (2006) on a scale in which 1 5 never and 7 5 always. An example item is “At
work, I feel bursting with energy” (α 5 0.90).
OCB. This was measured using Tsui et al.’s (1997) 8-item scale with 1 5 strongly disagree
and 7 5 strongly agree. An example item is “I make suggestions to improve the
organization” (α 5 0.85).
Control variables. We controlled for employee gender, job grade (employees, managers),
which are relevant to work engagement and OCB (Allen, 2006; Beauregard, 2012; Saks, 2006).
We also controlled for company as the study sample was collected from two multinationals.

Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis reveals that a six-factor model including four job resources,
work engagement and OCB fits the data very well (Chi-square 5 572.26, df 5 309, p < 0.001;
comparative fit index [CFI] 5 0.92; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] 5 0.90; root mean square error
of approximation [RMSEA] 5 0.06; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] 5 0.05).
Furthermore, the six-factor model demonstrated a better fit (Δχ 2 5 1724.70, df 5 186,
p < 0.01) than the one-factor model (Chi-square 5 2296.96, df 5 495, p < 0.001; CFI 5 0.53;
TLI 5 0.50; RMSEA 5 0.12; SRMR 5 0.12).
We conducted multiple regression analyses for hypothesis testing. This was to enable the
age profile variable to be treated as a continuous variable in the analyses. Specifically, in the
null model, we first entered company, gender and job grade as control variables and work
PR engagement as the dependent variable. Next, we added age profile and job resources
(performance feedback, autonomy, development opportunities and task variety) as main
effects in the second model. In the third model, we added four interaction terms (job resource x
age profile). To examine the hypotheses related to OCB, we repeated the three steps above
with OCB as the dependent variable.

Results
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables. No problems of
multicollinearity were indicated, with all correlations below the 0.700 level generally accepted
as the cut-off point indicating problematic data.
Table 2 presents the regression analyses for work engagement and Table 3 presents the
regression analyses for OCB. First, we found that development opportunities (β 5 0.46,
p < 0.01) and task variety (β 5 0.12, p < 0.05) were positively related to work engagement,
although performance feedback (β 5 0.06, p > 0.05) and autonomy (β 5 0.02, p > 0.05) were
not. Thus, support was found for H1b and H1d but not for H1a or H1c. Further, our results
showed that performance feedback (β 5 0.14, p < 0.05) and task variety (β 5 0.13, p < 0.05)
had a positive relationship with OCB. However, neither autonomy (β 5 0.06, p > 0.05) nor
development opportunities (β 5 0.09, p > 0.05) were significantly related to OCB. Thus, H2a
and H2d were supported, but not H2b or H2c.
Next, we examined the moderating effect of age profiles on the relationship between job
resources and work engagement and OCB. H3 focused on performance feedback. Our results
show that the interaction effect of age profiles and performance feedback was not significant
for both work engagement (β 5 0.10, p > 0.05) and OCB (β 5 0.01, p > 0.05), failing to support
H3. Although we did not find an age profile moderating effect on the development
opportunities–OCB relationship (β 5 0.63, p > 0.05), our results reveal that the positive effect
of development opportunities on work engagement was stronger for older employees than
younger employees (β 5 0.89, p < 0.01). Thus, H4 was partially supported. Figure 2
demonstrates graphically the stronger effect of development opportunities on engagement as
age profiles increase. No significant moderation effect of age profiles on the relationship
between autonomy and work engagement (β 5 0.13, p > 0.05) or OCB (β 5 0.02, p > 0.05) was
found. Thus, H5 was not supported. Last, we did not find a moderating effect of age profiles
on task variety’s relationship with work engagement (β 5 0.02, p > 0.05) or OCB (β 5 0.45,
p > 0.05). Thus, H6 was not supported.

Discussion
Population aging has become a serious global concern. However, there is little evidence
regarding the role of workforce age profiles in job-related attitudes and behavior. To address
this issue, the current study examined the interactive effects of age profiles and job resources
on work engagement and OCB. First, we found that, among the job resources studied, task
variety had a positive relationship with both work engagement and OCB, while development
opportunities were associated with higher work engagement, and performance feedback with
higher OCB. Second, we found that age profiles were a significant predictor of work
engagement and were particularly relevant for the effect of development opportunities on
work engagement. Third, we found that the positive effects of performance feedback,
development opportunities, autonomy and task variety on OCB were consistent across age
profiles. These findings provide implications for life span perspectives and future research as
well as implications for practice.
First, our results showed that development opportunities and task variety had a positive
relationship with work engagement, whereas performance feedback and task variety were
 Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Company 1.65 0.48

2. Gender 1.08 0.27 0.02
3. Job grade 1.80 0.40 0.31** 0.06
4. Age profile 2.32 0.84 0.09 0.01 0.10
5. Performance feedback 3.35 0.69 0.03 0.01 0.09 0.17** (0.72)
6. Autonomy 2.81 0.78 0.07 0.10 0.19** 0.07 0.10 (0.76)
7. Development opportunities 3.36 0.80 0.23** 0.03 0.08 0.19** 0.49** 0.06 (0.89)
8. Task variety 2.86 0.62 0.06 0.01 0.10 0.15* 0.12* 0.03 0.24** (0.72)
9. Work engagement 5.55 0.95 0.21** 0.07 0.01 0.28** 0.34** 0.06 0.57** 0.26** (0.90)
10. OCB 5.77 0.67 0.15* 0.04 0.03 0.10 0.20** 0.04 0.22** 0.17** 0.32** (0.85)
Note(s): N 5 270. For gender, 1 5 male and 2 5 female. For job grade, 1 5 employees and 2 5 managers. For age profile, 1 5 20–29, 2 5 30–39, 4 5 40–49 and 5 5 50
years or over. OCB 5 organizational citizenship behavior. Cronbach α is in parenthesis () along the diagonal
**p < 0.001
*p < 0.05
profile
workforce age
Effects of

and correlations of all

Mean, standard
Table 1.

variables
deviation, reliabilities
PR Variable Null Main effects Interaction effects

Company 0.22** 0.09* 0.09

Gender 0.07 0.06 0.04
Job grade 0.05 0.04 0.02
Age profile 0.15* 0.64
Performance feedback 0.06 0.01
Autonomy 0.02 0.05
Development opportunities 0.46** 0.90**
Task variety 0.12* 0.13
Performance feedback* age profile 0.10
Autonomy*age profile 0.13
Development opportunities* age profile 0.89**
Task variety* age profile 0.02
R2 0.05 0.38 0.41
ΔR2 0.31** 0.35*
Adjusted R2 0.04 0.36 0.38
Table 2.
Results of regression F 4.74* 19.95** 14.57**
analyses of work Note(s): N 5 270. For gender, 1 5 male and 2 5 female. For job grade, 1 5 employees and 2 5 managers. For
engagement on job age profile, 1 5 20–29, 2 5 30–39, 4 5 40–49 and 5 5 50 years or over
resources **p < 0.01
(standardized β) *p < 0.05

Variable Null Main effects Interaction effects

Company 0.15* 0.11 0.11

Gender 0.04 0.05 0.05
Job grade 0.01 0.02 0.01
Age profile 0.03 0.11
Performance feedback 0.14* 0.14
Autonomy 0.06 0.08
Development opportunities 0.09 0.21
Task variety 0.13* 0.32
Performance feedback* age profile 0.01
Autonomy*age profile 0.02
Development opportunities* age profile 0.63
Task variety* age profile 0.45
R2 0.02 0.09 0.11
ΔR2 0.07* 0.09
Adjusted R2 0.01 0.06 0.06
F 2.11 3.30** 2.52*
Table 3.
Results of regression Note(s): N 5 270. For gender, 1 5 male and 2 5 female. For job grade, 1 5 employees and 2 5 managers. For
analysis of OCB on job age profile, 1 5 20–29, 2 5 30–39, 4 5 40–49 and 5 5 50 years or over
resources **p < 0.01
(standardized β) *p < 0.05

positively related to OCB. These findings suggest that the positive effects of some job
resources on work engagement and OCB as previously noted in studies of Western contexts
(Christian et al., 2011) also hold in India. However, not all the resources have the positive
effects we expected to observe. Specifically, autonomy was not positively associated with
either work engagement or OCB. We speculate here that this may be because autonomy is less
important for employees in India where power distance is high (Hofstede, 2011). Employees in
India may not expect to have much control over their work or approaches to completing work
 5.8 Effects of
5.6 workforce age
profile
5.4
Work engagement

5.2
Low age
5
High age
4.8

4.6
Figure 2.
4.4 Moderation effect of
workforce age profiles
4.2 on development
opportunities and work
4 engagement
Low development opportunities High development opportunities

and hence they do not see autonomy as a resource. Whether employees’ job-related
expectations are met has an impact on their job attitudes and well-being (Wanous et al., 1992).
If employees do not expect to receive autonomy at work, autonomy does not help meet
employee expectations and thus does not have a positive impact on employee job attitudes
and behavior. Further studies in Western and non-Western contexts are needed to explore
this reasoning further.
Second, age profile emerged as a significant predictor of work engagement in our study.
Moreover, we found that the positive effect of development opportunities on work
engagement was stronger for younger employees than for older employees. These imply that
growth-oriented resources (i.e. development opportunities) are more attractive to younger
employees in stimulating their work engagement than to older employees. These findings are
consistent with Heckhausen et al.’s (2010) LSC view that individuals’ needs shift away from
needs for growth as age increases. The goal of avoiding loss and being perceived as
incompetent is more prevalent for older employees than other goals such as career growth,
which leads to a negative impact on work engagement (De Lang et al., 2010).
We did not, however, find support for the remaining moderation hypotheses related to
work engagement. Nevertheless, our results are not necessarily counter to LSC theorizing
(Heckhausen et al., 2010). For example, age profiles did not moderate the positive effect of
performance feedback on work engagement. This suggests that performance feedback
motivates younger employees as much as it motivates older employees. Research notes that
younger workers may use performance feedback to improve performance and achieve desired
career outcomes, whereas older workers use feedback to become aware of other’s views of
themselves (Wang et al., 2015). Although the two groups of employees use performance
feedback to obtain different types of goals (Findley et al., 2000), the feedback itself is useful
irrespective of age in helping to achieve the goals. In other words, age profiles change the
reason why this job resource affects work engagement but not the existence of the relationship.
Furthermore, we failed to find a moderating effect of age profile on the positive
relationship between task variety and work engagement. One reason for this finding may be
that task variety may not necessarily make the job more difficult to perform. For instance,
Kanfer and Ackerman (2004) suggest that knowledge-relevant job tasks do not necessarily
become more difficult for older employees to perform. Older employees with more work
experience are more knowledgable on the job than younger employees who are less
experienced. Thus, older employees’ job performance often remains the same and sometimes
PR even improves. Further, older employees who possess sophisticated job knowledge may
enjoy the satisfaction gained from completing a familiar but more interesting job just as much
as younger employees. Future research might consider the motivations behind whether job
resources have a positive (or negative) effect on employee attitudes and behaviors, which
might help to explain more than the direct relationship alone.
One unexpected outcome from our study was that age profiles were unrelated to OCB.
More specifically, our results showed that age did not moderate the relationship between any
of the job resources studied and OCB. These suggest that the positive effects of performance
feedback and task variety on OCB are consistent across age profiles. There may be multiple
reasons for this outcome, which future research could explore. It may be that age profiles have
no impact on the connection between job resources and OCB because OCB is an
organizational rather than work-level construct. In other words, performance feedback and
task variety are very specifically related to the tasks that an employee conducts in their day-
to-day work, whereas OCB refers to behaviors that serve the organization as a whole. Perhaps
LSC theorizing is more pertinent to the day-to-day work activities than to a broader sense of
loyalty toward and organization and the felt need to go the extra mile. Future research might
explore whether this disconnect between work-level and organization-level attitudes holds
across age profiles.

Conclusions
Although the findings of this study are interesting, we note here some potential limitations
and how they might be addressed in future studies. First, we examined the effects of four
types of job resources organizations commonly associated with work engagement and OCB,
however, other job resources may be important to employees. For instance, managerial
support may be more important to younger employees who are less experienced than older
employees. Future research is encouraged to expand on our study by examining the impact of
other types of job resources on employee attitudes and behaviors.
Second, although our study revealed the positive effects of some job resources on
employee work engagement and OCB across age profiles, the mechanisms underlying these
relationships remain unclear. For instance, performance feedback may motivate younger
employees by offering a chance to learn and grow, whereas it may be attractive to older
employees by helping them adjust efforts to complete work efficiently and avoid potential
losses. Thus, growth-orientation and loss avoidance orientation may mediate the positive
effects of performance feedback on positive job outcomes for younger and older employees,
respectively. Future studies might explore the underlying value of different job resources to
employees from different age profiles.
Third, our sample has some unique features which may limit our ability to generalize the
study’s findings. Although a diverse range of employees was included from multiple business
units and geographic locations across India, our sample included 80% middle or senior
management employees. It is common for Indian workplaces to use these senior job titles;
however, prior research suggests that preferences for job resources may vary across
employees at different job grades. For example, employees from higher-grade jobs in
managerial positions may value autonomy more than those from lower-grade jobs such as
manual positions (Rosenthal, 2004). Future research could gather representative samples
from different job grades within an organization to test this further.
Despite these limitations, our study has important implications for practice. To address
population aging in the workforce, it is important to consider when age profiles do or do not
affect employee appreciation of management practice. First, we found that age profiles
moderate the relationship between development opportunities and work engagement. This
suggests that some resources that are attractive to younger employees (e.g. development
opportunities) may be less attractive to older employees. Before allocating these resources, Effects of
organizations are encouraged to understand their workforce age composition as well as the workforce age
needs of their target employees.
Second, we found that in other areas there was consistency across age profiles, so no
profile
changes for different employee groups would be needed. Specifically, this applies to the
positive effect of performance feedback, task variety and autonomy on employee engagement
and/or OCB. This does not necessarily mean that age profiles are irrelevant, but perhaps that
people in different age profiles have different reasons for valuing these job resources.
Organizations are therefore encouraged to explore with their employees why they find
resources such as performance feedback, task variety and autonomy valuable.
Third, age profiles were found to be significantly related to work engagement but not to
OCB. In other words, organizations need to be aware that age plays a significant role in
determining how engaged employees are with their work, but that factors other than age are
likely to be important in influencing employee behaviors related to the broader organization.
Overall, these findings may guide organizational decision-making regarding which
investments in resources and management practices are age-profile specific, and which
appear to apply to all employees.
In conclusion, we found varying effects of four job resources studied in terms of their
relationship with work engagement and OCB. We also found that age profiles were a
significant predictor of work engagement, and the positive effect of development
opportunities on work engagement was stronger for younger employees than for older
employees. Overall, these results suggest that workforce age profiles might be an important
factor for organizations to consider in efficiently allocating their resources to enhance
employee attitudes and behaviors. We look forward to seeing the future development of age-
related studies of job resources in the workplace.

References
Allen, T.D. (2006), “Rewarding good citizens: the relationship between citizenship behavior, gender,
and organizational rewards”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 120-143.
Ang, K.B., Goh, C.T. and Koh, H.C. (1993), “Research notes, the impact of age on the job satisfaction of
accountants”, Personnel Review.
Avery, D.R., McKay, P.F. and Wilson, D.C. (2007), “Engaging the aging workforce: the relationship
between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and employee engagement”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, pp. 1542-1556.
Bakker, A.B. (2015), “A job demands–resources approach to public service motivation”, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 75, pp. 723-732.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 309-328.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Sanz-Vergel, A.I. (2014), “Burnout and work engagement: the JD–R
approach”, Annual Review Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1,
pp. 389-411.
Bakker, A.B., Tims, M. and Derks, D. (2012), “Proactive personality and job performance: the role of
job crafting and work engagement”, Human Relations, Vol. 65, pp. 1359-1378.
Beauregard, T.A. (2012), “Perfectionism, self-efficacy and OCB: the moderating role of gender”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 41, pp. 590-608.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013), “Labor force projections to 2022: the labor force participation rate
continues to fall”, available at: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/labor-force-
projections-to-2022-the-labor-force-participation-rate-continues-to-fall.htm.
PR Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: a quantitative review and
test of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64,
pp. 89-136.
Cross, S.E. and Markus, H.R. (1991), “Possible selves across the life span”, Human Development,
Vol. 34, pp. 230-255.
De Lange, A.H., Van Yperen, N.W., Van der Heijden, B.M. and Bal, P.M. (2010), “Dominant
achievement goals of older workers and their relationship with motivation-related outcomes”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 77, pp. 118-125.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job demands-resources
model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 499-512.
Findley, H.M., Giles, W.F. and Mossholder, K.W. (2000), “Performance appraisal process and system
facets: relationships with contextual performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85,
pp. 634-640.
Fineman, S. (2014), “Age matters”, Organization Studies, Vol. 35, pp. 1719-1723.
Freund, A.M. (2006), “Age-differential motivational consequences of optimization versus
compensation focus in younger and older adults”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 21, pp. 240-252.
Hansen, J.I.C. and Leuty, M.E. (2011), “Work values across generations”, Journal of Career Assessment,
Vol. 20, pp. 34-52.
Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007), “The power of feedback”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 77,
pp. 81-112.
Heckhausen, J. and Schulz, R. (1995), “A life-span theory of control”, Psychological Review, Vol. 102,
pp. 284-304.
Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C. and Schulz, R. (2010), “A motivational theory of life-span development”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 117, pp. 32-60.
Hofstede, G. (2011), “Dimensionalizing cultures: the hofstede model in context”, Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture, Vol. 2, p. 8.
Innocenti, L., Profili, S. and Sammarra, A. (2013), “Age as a moderator in the relationship between
HR development practices and employees’ positive attitudes”, Personnel Review, Vol. 42,
pp. 724-744.
Kanfer, R. and Ackerman, P.L. (2004), “Aging, adult development and work motivation”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 29, pp. 440-458.
Kliegl, R., Krampe, R.T. and Mayr, U. (2003), “Formal models of age differences in task complexity
effects”, in Staudinger, U.M. and Lindenberger, U. (Eds), Understanding Human Development
Dialogues with Lifespan Psychology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts.
Kluger, A.N. and DeNisi, A. (1996), “The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical
review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 119, pp. 254-284.
Kooij, D., De Lange, A.H., Jansen, P.G.W., Kanfer, R. and Dikkers, J. (2011), “Age and work-related
motives: results of a meta-analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32, pp. 197-225.
Kooij, D., Jansen, P.G.W., Dikkers, J. and De Lange, A.H. (2010), “The influence of age on the
associations between HR practices and both affective commitment and job satisfaction: a meta-
analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 31, pp. 1111-1136.
Lyons, S.T., Higgins, C.A. and Duxbury, L. (2009), “Work values: development of a new three-
dimensional structure based on confirmatory smallest space analysis”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 969-1002.

Maric, M., Hernaus, T., Tadic Vujcic, M. and Cerne, M. (2019), “Job characteristics and organizational
citizenship behavior: a multisource study on the role of work engagement”, Drustvena
istrazivanja: casopis za opca drustvena pitanja, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 25-45.
Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time”, Human Effects of
Performance, Vol. 10, pp. 85-97.
workforce age
Park, R. (2016), “Autonomy and citizenship behavior: a moderated mediation model”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 280-295. profile
Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson, J.F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S.,
Robinson, D. and Wallace, A.M. (2005), “Validating the organizational climate measure:
links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 379-408.
Piccolo, R.F. and Colquitt, J.A. (2006), “Transformational leadership and job behaviors: the mediating
role of core job characteristics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 327-340.
Pierce, H.R. and Maurer, T.J. (2009), “Linking employee development activity, social exchange and
organizational citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Training and Development,
Vol. 13, pp. 139-147.
Pooja, A.A., De Clercq, D. and Belausteguigoitia, I. (2016), “Job stressors and organizational citizenship
behavior: the roles of organizational commitment and social interaction”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 373-405.
Richter, N., Drabe, D. and Hauff, S. (2015), “Job satisfaction in aging workforces: an analysis of the
U.S., Japan, and Germany”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 26,
pp. 783-805.
Rosenthal, P. (2004), “Management control as an employee resource: the case of front-line service
workers”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41, pp. 601-622.
Ryan, R.M. (1991), “The nature of the self in autonomy and relatedness”, in Strauss, J. and Goethals, G.
(Eds), The Self: Interdisciplinary Approaches, Springer, New York.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 600-619.
Salanova, M., Agut, S. and Peiro, J.M. (2005), “Linking organizational resources and work engagement
to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, pp. 1217-1227.
Salanova, M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), “A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator
between job resources and proactive behaviour”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 19, pp. 116-131.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25,
pp. 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: a cross-national study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66, pp. 701-716.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 71-92.
Thakre, N. and Mathew, P. (2020), “Psychological empowerment, work engagement, and
organizational citizenship behavior among Indian service-sector employees”, Global Business
and Organizational Excellence, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 45-52.
Thomas, R., Hardy, C., Cutcher, L. and Ainsworth, S. (2014), “What’s age got to do with it? On the
critical analysis of age and organizations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 35, pp. 1569-1584.
Truxillo, D.M., Cadiz, D.M. and Hammer, L.B. (2015), “Supporting the aging workforce: a review and
recommendations for workplace intervention research”, Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2, pp. 351-381.
PR Truxillo, D.M., Cadiz, D.M., Rineer, J.R., Zaniboni, S. and Fraccaroli, F. (2012), “A lifespan perspective
on job design: fitting the job and the worker to promote job satisfaction, engagement, and
performance”, Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 2, pp. 340-360.
Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W. and Tripoli, A.M. (1997), “Alternative approaches to the employee-
organization relationship: does investment in employees pay off?”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 1089-1121.
US Census Bureau (2016), “An aging world: 2015”, available at: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/
Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p95-16-1.pdf (accessed 3 August 2020).
Van Veldhoven, M. and Dorenbosch, L. (2008), “Age, proactivity and career development”, Career
Development International, Vol. 13, pp. 112-131.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. and Angert, L. (2007), “Goal setting theory, job feedback, and OCB: lessons from a
longitudinal study”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 119-128.
Wagner, S.L. and Rush, M.C. (2000), “Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior: context,
disposition, and age”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 140, pp. 379-391.
Wang, M., Burlacu, G., Truxillo, D., James, K. and Yao, X. (2015), “Age differences in feedback
reactions: the roles of employee feedback orientation on social awareness and utility”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 100, pp. 1296-1308.
Wanous, J.P., Poland, T.D., Premack, S.L. and Davis, K.S. (1992), “The effects of met expectations on
newcomer attitudes and behaviors: a review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 77, pp. 288-297.
Zacher, H., Heusner, S., Schmitz, M., Zwierzanska, M.M. and Frese, M. (2010), “Focus on opportunities
as a mediator of the relationships between age, job complexity, and work performance”, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 76, pp. 374-386.

Corresponding author
Liwen Zhang can be contacted at: liwen.zhang4@unsw.edu.au

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