Ageism, Job Engagement, Negative Stereotypes, Intergenerational Climate, and Life Satisfaction among Middle-Aged and Older Employees in a University Setting

Abstract

This study examined whether age-related discrimination, negative age-related stereotypes about declining abilities due to age, job engagement (cognitive, physical, and emotional), and workplace intergenerational climate in terms of positive intergenerational affect (PIA) and workplace intergenerational inclusiveness (WIG) correlated with life satisfaction in a university setting. The analysis was based on 115–117 faculty and staff, 50 years or older. A Principal Axis factor analysis with Promax rotation on the job-related variable revealed three factors: Experiencing Ageism (discrimination and negative stereotypes), Work Climate (PIA and WIG), and Job Engagement (physical, emotional, and cognitive). The factor-based regression scores on the three-factor-based scores were correlated with life satisfaction and also subjected to hierarchical regression analyses with age, sex, and education entered on the first step and the three factors on the second step. The results of both the correlational and hierarchical regression analysis indicated that experiencing ageism was significantly predictive of life satisfaction, and that ageism may play a more primary role than job engagement and work climate-related variables in accounting for life satisfaction.

Intergenerational climate at higher education: validity of the Spanish version of the workplace intergenerational climate scale

“…The existence of an adequate intergenerational climate is a key element for the retention of talent and to avoid the loss of organizational knowledge (Ramsey et al, 2016), as well as to facilitate processes of knowledge sharing and professional development (e.g., Dietz et al, 2022), which are essential to increase the capacity for innovation in and improvement of our universities (e.g., Le and Lei, 2019;Sahibzada et al, 2022). Likewise, there are several studies that link to other key organizational variables, such as communication (Strawser et al, 2021), job satisfaction and job engagement (e.g., McConatha et al, 2022), ageism and negative stereotypes (e.g., Lagacé et al, 2019), and generational identity (Lyons et al, 2019).…”

“…The few studies that address the analysis of intergenerational relationships in universities as a workplace, associate it, on the one hand, to processes of discrimination, job engagement or professional satisfaction (McConatha et al, 2022) and, on the other hand, to processes of learning, knowledge sharing or the reduction of knowledge loss (Bratianu and Leon, 2015;Dzimińska and Warwas, 2022). Although there is no clear and standardized proposal of nomenclature, characteristics and interval of years in which to place each generation (Mehra and Nickerson, 2019), we agree with several authors that currently, we can find up to 3 different generations living together in the same work environment, sharing workspaces, functions and tasks (e.g., Ropes, 2013;North and Fiske, 2015;Polat and Yılmaz, 2020): Baby Boomers (born between 1946-1964), Generation X (born between 1965-1980, Generation Y andMillennials (born between 1981-2000).…”

Assessing age discrimination in workplaces: psychometric exploration of the Workplace Age Discrimination Scale (WADS-G)

“…Aligned with the in-group-out-group perspective articulated by Marchiondo et al (2016) , the WADS focuses on the meso-level of ageism, delving into interpersonal and intergroup-specific experiences of workplace age discrimination (see Table 1 ). Recent empirical studies have used the scale primarily to better understand age discrimination against older people in the workplace, for example to investigate the consequences of age discrimination and mediating mechanisms ( McConatha et al, 2022 ; Dong et al, 2023 ; Peng et al, 2023 ) and antecedents of age discrimination ( Reeves et al, 2021 ; Lagacé et al, 2023 ; Von Humboldt et al, 2023 ). But also, to develop new scales ( Wilckens et al, 2021 ) or to validate newly developed scales ( Reeves et al, 2021 ).…”

Factors influencing attitudes toward aging workforce: Evidence from college students in Southern Thailand

“…Furthermore, the significance of understanding college students' intentions cannot be overstated as they will soon enter the workforce. The attitudes of younger generations can profoundly impact agerelated biases, which in turn shape the future workforce and influence individuals' decisions regarding workforce participation (McConatha et al, 2022). Negative attitudes among younger generations can contribute to early retirement among older workers by creating an unfavorable work environment and limiting opportunities for older individuals (Carr et al, 2016; van den Berg et al, 2010; Wilson et al, 2020).…”