A lifespan development perspective and meta‐analysis on the relationship between age and organizational training

Abstract

The confluence of the aging population and economic conditions that require working longer necessitate a focus on how to best train and develop older workers. We report a meta‐analysis of the age and training relationship that examines training outcomes and moderators with 60 independent samples (total N = 10,003). Framed within the lifespan development perspective, we expected and found that older trainees perform worse (ρ = −.14, k = 34, N = 5642; δ = 1.08, k = 21, N = 1242) and take more time (ρ = .19, k = 15, N = 2780; δ = 1.25, k = 12, N = 664) in training relative to younger trainees. Further, age was negatively related to post‐training self‐efficacy (ρ = −.08, k = 10, N = 4631), but not related to trainee reactions. Moderator analyses provided mixed support that training alone is related to increased mastery of skills and knowledge. No support was found for the moderating effects of pacing or instructional approach. We call for future research examining the interactive effects of training design on older worker outcomes in ways that capitalize on age‐related growth, compensate for decline, and consider the strategies workers use to mitigate the effect of age‐related losses.

What's age got to do with it? A primer and review of the workplace aging literature

“…Indeed, research suggests that older workers take longer and do not do as well in training relative to younger workers (Kubeck et al., 1996), a finding replicated and extended in the Davenport et al. (2022) paper in this special issue. Specifically, Davenport et al.…”

“…A lifespan perspective on motivation recognizes multiple age‐related determinants that can affect what choices mature workers make about employment and the strength of their attention and effort to job tasks during work. As discussed above, declines in fluid intellectual abilities (e.g., reasoning; short‐term memory) may make some complex tasks more difficult and be associated with lower self‐efficacy for new skill training (Davenport et al., 2022; Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004). Across the lifespan, however, normative age‐related changes in dispositions/personality traits (Roberts et al., 2006), goals, and motives (Ebner et al., 2006) may contribute to stronger motivation in the workplace and/or to longer working life (Kanfer et al., 2013).…”

“…We urge researchers to work with organizations to inform the development of these important interventions. The first place to start would be to understand-and design training for-the unique needs of older trainees because it is likely, as highlighted by Davenport et al (2022) in this special issue, that training designed for older workers is likely also to benefit workers of all ages and ability levels (Torres et al, 2019).…”

“…Davenport et al (2022) paper in this special issue. Specifically,Davenport et al expand the set of outcomes examined beyond task mastery and training time.…”

Putting the individual and context back into national human resource development research: A systematic review and research agenda

“…However, unlike EST, an LDP approach gives primacy to a ‘lifespan process in which an individual's biological, cognitive and socioemotional changes occur in multiple contexts including families, schools, workplaces, counties and so on’ (Liu et al., 2020, p. 3). The LDP emphasizes a lifelong process of decline, growth and stability that is continuous (Davenport et al., 2022), whereas life‐stage models emphasize discrete life stages in terms of that development process (Moersdorf et al., 2022). Key principles that underpin this perspective include: (1) development is conceptualized as a lifelong process where no age period is superior to another; (2) development as a process is considered multidirectional, both within and across domains; (3) development inherently involves both gains and losses; (4) the development process contains plasticity and is modifiable within persons; (5) development processes occur in a historical, social and cultural context; (6) the process of development is contingent on the interplay of both normative age‐ and history‐graded influences, in addition to non‐normative influences; and (7) development is best studied from multiple perspectives (Baltes, 1987).…”