Abstract
In the context of demographic change, creating a supportive work environment adapted to the abilities and needs of an age-diverse and aging workforce becomes increasingly important. However, implementing HR measures for older workers comes with certain challenges and often fails. Theoretical models and frameworks that depict the hindrances and triggers of implementing HR measures often fail to adequately capture the specific context of aging workforces. Therefore, we aim to identify hindering and facilitating internal and external factors regarding the implementation of HR measures for older workers in particular. Using a reflexive thematic analysis approach, we qualitatively analyzed interview data of organizational stakeholders from 23 different organizations in Germany. We identified various internal organizational factors that can hinder or facilitate the development and implementation of HR measures (e.g. organizational structures, stakeholder support, and resources). Likewise, several external factors were identified that can—depending on their nature and organizational characteristics like size and industry type—influence the development and implementation (e.g. implications of events like the COVID-19 pandemic or social change, legal standards, and external organizations). This study contributes to research and practice on HR measures for older workers by increasing the understanding of diverse hindering and facilitating factors for their implementation, thereby contributing to fostering positive organizational change.
Introduction
The demographic shift toward aging populations has led to a significant transformation in labor market structures, particularly in industrialized countries (United Nations, 2022). As the proportion of older workers in the workforce increases, organizations are more and more confronted with the challenge of supporting extended working lives to maintain their productivity and competitiveness in times of labor shortages (Lauterbach and Radermacher, 2026; Riekhoff, 2024). These developments have elevated the strategic importance of human resource (HR) measures tailored to the specific needs, abilities, and motives of older workers (De Lange et al., 2015; Kooij et al., 2013; Sousa et al., 2021). In response, researchers and practitioners alike have intensified their focus on identifying and utilizing HR measures that foster sustainable employment in later life (Bieling et al., 2015; Farr-Wharton et al., 2023; Marcus et al., 2024).
The demographic development and its implications for older workers and organizations are further intensified in light of the recent global COVID-19 pandemic crisis. COVID-19 had a tremendous influence on organizational functioning. Established processes were disrupted, regulations were constantly changed, and time and financial resources had to be allocated to implement the needed changes in the workplace, including the reskilling of the workforce, thereby putting a huge burden on HR management (Bieńkowska et al., 2022; Collings et al., 2021).
HR measures for older workers include age-specific (e.g. bridge employment options), age-inclusive (e.g. training opportunities regardless of age), and age-neutral activities (e.g. wellness programs) that are provided and promoted by the organization (Boehm et al., 2021). They can also be referred to as age-friendly HR measures as they promote the participation and inclusion of older workers in the workforce (Appannah and Biggs, 2015). Wilckens et al. (2021) developed the Later Life Workplace Index (LLWI) that differentiates such measures into nine thematic domains, covering the areas of organizational climate, leadership, work design, health management, individual development, knowledge management, transition to retirement, continued employment in retirement, and health and retirement coverage.
Studies from Brazil, Sweden, and the Netherlands indicate that the prevalence of these HR measures for older workers has been comparably low in the past (Kooij et al., 2014; Nilsson, 2018; Tonelli et al., 2020). Recent data from over 100 organizations in Germany (Finsel et al., 2025) indicates substantial variation in the extent to which age-friendly HR measures are implemented across the LLWI domains. The domains organizational climate and leadership scored relatively high, reflecting a higher prevalence of practices supportive of older workers in these areas, whereas lower scores reflecting lower prevalence—and thus comparatively lower age-friendliness—were observed in the transition to retirement and health and retirement coverage domains.
To understand why the prevalence of HR practices for older workers is lacking despite their necessity being widely acknowledged in the scientific and organizational community, we have to take a look at hindering and facilitating factors within and outside of organizations that can influence the development and successful implementation of such measures. Boehm et al. (2021) have taken a closer look at antecedents of age-related HR measures by reviewing the literature. They provide a valuable overview of multi-level factors influencing the availability of these measures, demonstrating that not only general aspects (e.g. manager support), but also context-specific aspects (e.g. demographic shifts) play a role. However, the model does not differentiate between hindering and facilitating potential and remains on a rather abstract level as it summarizes empirical research from across the world. Napathorn (2023) conducted an empirical study in Thailand to identify hindering and facilitating factors for implementing HR measures using case study data from four organizations. They identified eight facilitating (e.g. nonunionism) and two hindering factors (e.g. age bias) within organizations. While the author suggests that the national institutional and cultural context interacts with those organizational factors, they did not consider hindering and facilitating factors outside of organizations in their study.
The intervention research literature offers some guidelines regarding hindering and facilitating factors for HR measures in general. For example, Roehl (2023) investigated the influence of the physical, social, and task context on implementing health promotion programs in four organizations. Nielsen and colleagues (Nielsen and Abildgaard, 2013; Nielsen and Randall, 2013) differentiate hindering and facilitating factors for intervention follow-up processes into discrete and omnibus contextual factors. While the former refers to specific events that might influence the effectiveness (e.g. changes in organizational structures, conflicting change initiatives, macro-economic factors), the omnibus context refers more to the general context in which the intervention took place (e.g. time and place of implementation, participants and drivers of the intervention, organizational culture, resources). However, these models are developed for a very general application and are missing several context-specific aspects covered in the studies focusing on HR measures for older workers in particular (e.g. age discrimination or retirement policies). As such, the authors also note that their frameworks should be used as a basic guideline that has to be adapted to the specific context (Nielsen and Abildgaard, 2013; Nielsen and Randall, 2013).
Looking at the change management literature, Senior and Swailes (2010) applied the PEST (political, economical, social, technological) framework from macroeconomics and concluded political factors (e.g. legislation and taxation), economic factors (e.g. employment rates and economic policies), sociocultural factors (e.g. demographic developments and changes in way of life), and technological factors (e.g. information technologies and computerization) to be environmental triggers of organizational change which could be transferred to the implementation of new HR measures. However, the authors also note that the broadness of potential influencing factors makes it difficult to develop a general framework that adequately covers different specific contexts. The PEST framework does, however, highlight the great influence of societal events like economic or health crises on organizational processes and functioning.
In summary, research on facilitating and hindering factors for the implementation of HR measures for older workers remains rather broad and does not go into detailed factors. Likewise, while frameworks from the intervention and change management literature can give general guidance on these factors, the authors themselves note that these models have to be adapted to the specific context to adequately capture all relevant factors (e.g. Nielsen and Abildgaard, 2013). Thus, to better understand when and why HR measures for older workers are implemented and successful, it is crucial to take a context-specific perspective on potential barriers and facilitators. This is especially relevant in light of demographic developments. Moreover, considering the increasing volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA; Worley and Jules, 2020) of today’s world that is depicted by VUCA events like COVID-19 and wars that are impacting economies far beyond the affected borders, it is important to reassess the applicability of prior findings in times of such crises.
Consequently, we aimed to refine and adapt existing theories and frameworks by looking closely at hindering and facilitating factors within and outside organizations in the context of HR measures for older workers. Novel knowledge about context-relevant, concrete factors that can decrease or increase the organizations’ ability and motivation to implement such measures, thereby influencing their prevalence, can improve the development of studies and practical recommendations that foster real organizational change benefiting older workers.
Considering the complexity of the interplay of intra- and extra-organizational stakeholders, decisions, and circumstances, especially in times of crises, we decided to apply a qualitative approach to our study (Yin, 2003). The qualitative study design allowed us to study the workplace and societal context for HR measures for older workers in-depth using an explorative viewpoint (Yilmaz, 2013). We have set our study in the German context, focusing on 23 diverse organizations. By establishing a similar regulatory and cultural (i.e. external) context, but incorporating different organizational structures and industries (i.e. internal context), we were able to create a broad but still differentiated picture.
Methodology
Sample and Research Design
We used a purposeful sampling technique to select our sample. In particular, we applied criterion sampling using a prior application of the LLWI measurement in the company as the criterion for inviting organizations to participate in our study (Patton, 2015). As part of a larger research project (Finsel et al., 2024), organizations applied the 80-item LLWI by surveying a sample of their workforce to assess the availability of HR measures for older workers in the nine respective domains. Afterward, they received a detailed report for their organization and a good practice manual. This ensured that all participating organizations previously engaged with the topic of HR measures for older workers and were encouraged to take further action.
Out of 98 organizations from Germany, Austria, and the German-speaking Switzerland that applied the LLWI between October 2018 and February 2021 as part of the research project, we were able to re-contact 92 organizations via e-mail, LinkedIn, or Xing. In 73 cases, we were able to send an invitation to participate in the study to the former contact person who was in charge of the LLWI application. In 19 cases, the former contact person no longer worked for the organization or in the responsible department. Out of these, we identified a successor in 10 cases. We checked the suitability by enquiring whether they were involved in the LLWI application and the follow-up processes. Overall, representatives from 23 German organizations agreed to participate in our study, yielding a response rate of 23.5%. Except for two individuals, the participants were the original contact persons. Out of those who declined study participation, the main reason was limited time resources.
Detailed sample characteristics are displayed in Table 1. More than half (52%) of the participants were female, with a mean age of 49 years. Most participants (74%) worked in the HR department. The organizations cover a broad range of sizes and industries, with an average share of employees aged 55 and older of 33%. The organizations applied the LLWI between October 2018 and September 2020.
Characteristics of participants and their organizations.
Note. N = 23.
Data were collected via semi-structured interviews between September 2022 and March 2023. Thus, the time period between the LLWI application and our study includes the height of the (after-)effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russo-Ukrainian war on everyday life in Germany (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit [Federal Ministry of Health], 2023; Saalwirth and Leipold, 2024; Schelhorn et al., 2021). Semi-structured interviews were chosen to allow for flexibility and modification throughout the data collection. The interviews were conducted in German with one of the researchers as an interviewer. In three cases, interviewees’ colleagues joined the interview, allowing for an even richer data collection.
The interview guide started with an introductory section and general questions on the perceived usefulness of the LLWI. After that, the interview focused on hindering and facilitating factors within and outside of the organization regarding the implementation of HR measures for older workers. Example questions include “Which internal factors were facilitating for the implementation of measures following the LLWI?” and “Why were specific measures not implemented in the past?” We also specifically asked how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the development and implementation of measures for older employees. We ran a pilot interview to fine-tune the interview guideline. As no changes were made based on this pilot except for the order of questions, we included the pilot data in the following analyses. Throughout the following interviews, we made one modification to the interview guide. We asked participants explicitly if they considered any aspects related to politics (e.g. political decisions, legal standards) to be hindering or facilitating factors. The interviews lasted 38 minutes on average and were audio-recorded for accuracy and transcribed afterward.
An online survey that was filled out by the participants prior to the interview was used to enrich the interview questions and gather the participants’ demographic data. The survey included the LLWI to reactivate the topic discussion and ask about perceived changes regarding HR measures for older workers since the LLWI application. Participants reported positive developments in three out of the nine LLWI domains on average. Only three participants stated that fewer measures are in place in some of the LLWI domains. Another four participants reported no changes in any of the domains. This indicates that the sample was adequately suited to cover both hindering as well as facilitating factors regarding the implementation of HR measures for older workers.
Data analysis
We applied a thematic analysis approach to analyze the interview data in MAXQDA. Thematic analysis aims to “identify and make sense of patterns of meaning across a dataset” (Braun and Clarke, 2021: 331) by “define[ing] themes within the data and organize[ing] those themes into some type of structure.” It can be applied to identify factors that constitute or influence social phenomena, such as organizational processes (Braun et al., 2019). Since our research question aims to identify hindering and facilitating factors for implementing HR measures for older workers, this methodological approach was fitting to organize and interpret our data. In particular, we used the reflexive thematic analysis approach following the qualitative paradigm (Braun and Clarke, 2021). This approach was chosen to emphasize the active role of the researcher in analyzing and interpreting the data while also highlighting the openness of the analysis. The iterative and flexible process allows full utilization of the qualitative nature of the data.
Following the steps described by Braun et al. (2019), we started data analysis by familiarizing ourselves with the data. The aims were to get an overview of the interviews, look for interesting aspects in the responses, and note potential connections between or within participants or with reference to findings from the literature review. The second step was systematic data coding, which was independently conducted by two of the co-authors to ensure internal validity (Wehrle et al., 2018). The raters systematically allocated labels (i.e. codes) to individual segments in the data to create meaning and structure. Since our literature review identified several existing theoretical frameworks, we applied reflexive thematic analysis in a deductive way by letting the findings from the literature review guide us when coding and interpreting the data (Braun et al., 2019). However, contrary to other thematic analysis approaches (e.g. coding reliability thematic analysis), we were not using an a priori developed list of codes or themes to fully utilize the flexibility and openness enabled by the reflexive thematic analysis approach. In the third step, the two raters independently generated initial themes by examining the codes and coded segments for clusters of shared meaning. The two raters then compared and reviewed both sets of initial themes to create a refined set of candidate themes. Some initial codes had to be refined, and some were promoted to (sub)themes as part of this process. These candidate themes were then further developed and reviewed in the fourth step. As recommended by Braun et al. (2019), the raters reviewed both the coded segments for fit with the themes as well as the fit of themes with the overall dataset and other themes. During this, the whole dataset was further inspected for any data not coded in prior steps. Finally, the raters refined, defined, and sometimes renamed the themes by reviewing the coded segments for each theme. Table 3 in Appendix 1 provides an overview of the measures we have taken to ensure study rigor throughout the complete study process.
Findings
We present the themes along the four categories of influencing factors: (1) hindering internal factors, (2) facilitating internal factors, (3) hindering external factors, and (4) facilitating external factors for the implementation of HR measures for older workers. An overview of the main themes and subthemes is presented in Table 2. A more detailed overview including codes and example quotes is presented in Table 4 in Appendix 1. The sample quotes were translated into English by the researchers.
Identified main themes and subthemes.
Hindering internal factors
First, we take a look at factors within organizations since they are directly related to organizational processes. Notably, several of the factors we identified have been described as both hindering or facilitating factors by different people. In the following sections, we will highlight which diverging characterizations of the factors led to the different assessments. The main themes identified with regard to the hindering internal factors are (1) shortage of addressable needs for measures, (2) lack of commitment of the top management, (3) lack of support from various other stakeholders in the organization, (4) lack of resources, (5) hindering factors in the organizational context, and (6) unfavorable organizational climate and culture.
Shortage of addressable needs for measures
Contrary to having identified a need for action, no perceived or existing needs can be detrimental to new HR measure implementation. Besides not recognizing the operational necessity or already having a high level of measures in place, the need for action can also be diminished by not perceiving the benefit of implementing new measures or having other topics with a higher priority (e.g. gaining revenue, handling the COVID-19 pandemic, recruitment of young talents). The former is particularly difficult as participants stated that it is not always possible to measure a direct positive impact of new measures. However, if no direct benefit is recognized, it can be difficult to argue why the organization should invest time and money. In addition to no (perceived) needs, having employees with highly different (e.g. by age groups or type of work activity) or exaggerated needs can make it difficult to follow up on those needs and fulfill them, as this can lead to higher planning and resource expenditures.
Lack of commitment of top management
Throughout the interviews, it became clear that the top management plays a crucial role for the implementation of HR measures for older workers. Participants stated that a lack of support can be a strong barrier to new measures as top management can function as gatekeepers. Particularly, it can be harmful if the top management does not perceive the topic to be relevant to the organization and rather focuses on other topics, does not support aims and actions regarding new measures, and does not provide resources to work on them.
Lack of support from various other stakeholders in the organization
Besides a lack of support from top management, participants further mentioned other organizational stakeholders whose lack of support can hinder the implementation. This includes the HR department, managers, and employees. If there is a need for measures, but the HR department or other people in charge are not acting upon it, managers do not communicate new measures or speak negatively about them, or employees do not perceive a benefit and are not willing to invest time or sometimes money (i.e. part of their salary), new measures for older workers will not be implemented and used. When asked directly about managers, participants highlighted the crucial role they have in the implementation process. For example, Participant #20 states that: Because I believe that there are managers who don’t do this or don’t think long-term. Because it also costs time, of course. And then maybe in the end – helter-skelter – in the worst case, it is completely forgotten.
In addition to acting as potential gatekeepers for top-down processes, some participants also highlighted the potential gatekeeping role for bottom-up processes. For example, if an employee mentions wishes or needs in a meeting with their manager but the manager neglects to act upon it or forward it to someone else responsible, no change will be initiated.
Lack of resources
Most participants have mentioned a lack of resources as a key barrier to implementing HR measures for older workers. Moreover, even when resources are available in general, participants often stated that—particularly in comparison to other organizational topics—the cost-benefit analysis of implementing new measures for older workers did not have a positive outcome. While most of the statements on a lack of resources referred to financial and personnel resources (i.e. time, people, and competencies), some have also mentioned insufficient technical equipment as a barrier. For example, a lack of laptops made offering home office to all employees challenging.
Hindering factors in the organizational context
Participants described several aspects pertaining to organizational structures and processes that can hinder the development and implementation of HR measures for older workers.
In particular, specific organizational characteristics can be unfavorable. For example, several participants working in smaller organizations noted that larger organizations seemingly have more resources and possibilities to support older workers. Additionally, very small organizations sometimes do not have a designated HR department in charge of planning and implementing such measures, leaving the responsibility to top management or another person who has to handle the duties in addition to their other tasks. Furthermore, many participants from the public sector highlighted that administrative processes and restrictions can be a great barrier—particularly in comparison to the private sector, which has more freedom regarding their strategic decisions and application of funds.
Another aspect hindering the successful implementation of measures was a lack of formal structures and processes. If there is no person responsible and no clear communication about the offers and processes, it can be difficult for employees to understand which measures are in place and how to utilize them. Additionally, if there is no alignment with the strategic direction of the organization and offering new measures for older workers is viewed to be adverse to the strategic approach, the likelihood that these new measures will be taken up can decrease. For example, the budget might be distributed unfavorably, or more extensive beneficial changes to the workplace have to wait in favor of other structural or processual changes implemented as a consequence of other strategic processes so as not to overwhelm the employees.
Unfavorable organizational climate and culture
In addition to the more formal characteristics, participants also stated that different factors pertaining to the organizational climate and culture can hinder the implementation. In particular, participants stated that an organizational climate and culture characterized by tensions between different age groups can make implementing new measures for older workers difficult. This can be particularly difficult when implementing age-neutral or age-specific measures (see Boehm et al., 2021). While age-neutral measures (e.g. ergonomic workplace adjustments) can have a potential for conflict due to a lack of consideration for individual differences and needs, age-specific measures (e.g. counseling to prepare for retirement life) can have a potential for conflict since they might be perceived as unequal treatment by younger employees. Likewise, many participants viewed resistance to change as an important hindering factor to implementing beneficial changes in the work environment, which can be increased by a lack of communication and transparency. As such, Participant #3 said: This negative way of thinking is a nightmare when it comes to such things. Basically, everything new is bad at first.
Facilitating internal factors
As described above, hindering internal factors have in common that they are unhelpful when they are not available at all or are only available with specific characteristics. Most of the factors have also been mentioned in reference to facilitating factors if they are available in the organization to a certain degree or extent. Hence, the main themes identified with regard to the facilitating internal factors are (1) existing and identified needs for measures, (2) existing commitment of the top management, (3) existing support from various other stakeholders in the organization, (4) available resources, (5) facilitating factors in the organizational context, (6) supportive organizational climate and culture, and (7) participative engagement and cooperation.
Existing and identified needs for measures
One of the most often mentioned facilitating factors was perceiving an existing operational need to take action. The need to support older workers stemmed from a high share of older workers in the workforce, a need to prevent or combat staff shortages in light of upcoming retirement waves and a lack of young talents, as well as the wish or necessity to retain knowledge in the organization and maintain older workers’ work ability.
Existing commitment of top management
While a lack of support from top management can prevent measures, participants stated that it is helpful if top management is aware of the topic and its relevance for the organization. This includes a sensitivity to the situation of older workers. Going beyond awareness, having top management prioritize the topic (e.g. focusing on it regarding the organization’s strategy) and offer support regarding decisions and actions (e.g. by providing resources) can accelerate measure development.
Existing support from various other stakeholders in the organization
Likewise, support from other organizational stakeholders can facilitate the successful implementation process and increase the likelihood of the measures being used. Again, participants highlighted that success in implementing new measures relies heavily on managers, as illustrated by Participant #5: I mean, in terms of implementation, it’s the managers. Ultimately, they have to implement everything on-site that a managing board or top management at any level comes up with. So, the local managers are the linchpin for everything and especially for dealing with employees. [. . .] But in this respect, yes, the manager absolutely has a central role to play in implementing the measures. Because we can’t do anything without them.
Additionally, managers are important role models. Their views and use of new measures can reflect upon their team members’ perceptions. As such, through their communication and actions, they can also gain more acceptance from employees regarding new measures and workplace changes. Besides managers’ support, this facilitating factor also includes support from the HR department, employee representatives, and employees.
Available resources
Resources, particularly financial resources, are key to developing and implementing new measures. As many measures are linked to financial investments (e.g. training, employer-sponsored retirement plans, ergonomic workplace adjustments) or take away time from employees to generate revenue (e.g. reducing working hours, taking part in medical testing), having enough financial resources to support the measures can be beneficial. Additionally, participants also highlighted the personnel resources. The development and implementation of measures can take up a lot of time, and people who are responsible for this task should have enough time resources to work on it. This can also refer to managers who need time to communicate the measures and employees who need time to utilize them.
Facilitating factors in the organizational context
Similar to the hindering internal factors, participants described several aspects pertaining to organizational structures and processes that can facilitate the development and implementation of HR measures for older workers. Interestingly, contrary to the participants stating that smaller organizations seemingly have fewer human and financial resources, one participant noted that their small organizational size helps them to identify their older workers’ needs quickly. Thus, the same characteristic was perceived to be both hindering and facilitating, depending on the aspect under consideration.
In addition to this ambiguous finding, some organizational characteristics have found to be uniformly beneficial. For example, organizations that mainly employ office workers can find it easier to implement flexible workplace and working times compared to organizations where employees primarily work on production or construction, and home office or flexible working times are challenging to offer. Moreover, it can be helpful to have people formally in charge of HR measures for older workers or create new positions to hold this responsibility. Similar to the positive effect of top management prioritization, HR measures that align with the organization’s strategic approach can be easier to implement. For example, if the organization aims to decrease the sickness absence rate generally, then it will be easier to implement health management measures aimed at maintaining (older) workers’ health. While the existence of work agreements has been stated to be beneficial, one participant noted that it can depend on the specific contract content as specific stipulations can also be hindering for HR measures for older workers.
Supportive organizational climate and culture
Whereas an organizational climate and culture characterized by age group conflicts and tension can be hindering, an age-friendly organizational climate (e.g. positive image of age, equality of opportunities) and sensitization to older workers’ abilities and needs can facilitate the implementation of HR measures for older workers. In this regard, several participants noted that as they get older, they become more sensitized to this topic as they are affected themselves. However, participants also mentioned age-neutral aspects such as having an organizational culture that embraces openness and focuses on the individual employee and their needs.
Participative engagement and cooperation
Finally, participants stated that it is helpful to include leaders and employees in developing and implementing measures and encouraging collaboration in the process. This can be achieved by communicating decisions and plans and being transparent about the process. But more active approaches to inclusion can also be useful. Several participants recommended the establishment of working groups to focus on specific topic areas and include employees outside of the departments in charge. Likewise, actively seeking feedback from the workforce regarding new measures to adapt them if needed can increase the success of the measure in the long run. Another recommendation was to have trial runs within the organization or pilots in specific departments to test and review new measures before their full roll-out. Participant #1 highlights the usefulness of such trial runs in case the need for a full implementation has not been recognized yet: There were always the questions “Well, do you need that now?” And then we said “Ok, we’ll just test it out”. We just want to see the response from the organization. How is it received? And then we can simply talk again on the basis of whether it makes sense to offer such an instrument on a broad basis.
Hindering external factors
Several external events have shaped Germany in the years prior to our study, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russo-Ukrainian War. The following section will demonstrate how these crises and other factors outside of the organization can impede the implementation of measures for older workers.
The main themes identified with regard to the hindering external factors are (1) negative organizational implications of national, international, or global crises and (2) negative effects of legal, regulatory, or collective agreement standards.
Negative organizational implications of national, international, or global crises
Many participants described how recent global crises hindered the development and implementation of measures as well as harmed the working situation for older workers in different ways. One of the main negative implications of the COVID-19 pandemic was the lack of social interaction as a result of the high home office use. Some participants mentioned that the lack of face-to-face interaction can reduce the communal spirit, which can be challenging for the organizational climate. Moreover, it can be difficult for knowledge transfer processes. Some measures that were already in place (particularly health management measures) also had to be terminated based on the contact and distance restrictions if they could not be transferred into a digital format.
Furthermore, many participants noted that handling the crises tied up resources, thereby decreasing available resources for measures, which has shown to be an important facilitating internal factor. This referred to both financial as well as personnel resources. For example, implementing the requirements to combat COVID-19 at work sometimes involved rather significant financial (e.g. medical supplies, laptops) and time investments (e.g. people in charge of the hygiene measures). The public sector was particularly affected by this development since their employees also handled contact tracing during the height of the pandemic. In this regard, Participant #4 working in a public organization stated: The benefit [of the survey] was all right. We actually wanted to continue working on it. And that has really been swallowed up by COVID-19. You just have to say that. We would have liked to do this more intensively. But unfortunately that didn’t work out. You have to say that. Because then it really was COVID-19 and all my work capacity, since I was also responsible for it, was tied up in COVID-19.
Additionally, particularly in the private sector, the crisis also affected the general economic situation of organizations since the lockdown led to a loss of turnover for specific sectors. This could lead to a further decrease in available resources and to changing strategic priorities when dividing the remaining resources. Finally, one participant stated that the Russo-Ukrainian War led to a supply shortage of technical equipment (i.e. laptops), thereby hindering specific measures like flexible workplaces.
Negative effects of legal, regulatory, or collective agreement standards
Participants further described ways in which statutory, regulatory, and collective bargaining standards and stipulations can hinder the development and implementation of new measures for older workers. Many participants illustrated ways in which standards and regulations can lead to overregulation and insufficient flexibility to implement measures as needed. This can refer to laws, but also collective agreements, and even dependencies on parent companies. When talking about missing offers with regard to private supplemental health insurance, Participant #14 from a public organization said: Yes, that’s simply because we don’t do that at all. It’s not because we’re not creative. But we’re simply not allowed to do it because it’s not permitted by the collective agreement.
Participant #22 referred to an unfavorable dependency on their parent company in a similar way: What I would perhaps also say, which perhaps also applies to many corporations. We are actually a [country in Europe] company. And our parent company is in [country in Europe]. And we have various branches throughout the countries. And that is of course ̶ can be both a help and a hindrance - but if we now say, for example, we want to introduce I don’t know how many projects with regard to older workers and [parent company] says “No, we don’t see it that way and we have a completely different priority”, then in the end we are of course dependent on our parent company or the parent group. Which is what they say. We are not completely free.
Moreover, some participants stated that the implementation of stipulations and standards can tie up personnel resources, thereby decreasing available personnel resources for developing measures for older workers.
Lastly, some participants mentioned that stipulations and demands can create a financial barrier for new measures and that a lack of financial incentives can decrease the likelihood of implementing measures. In the public sector, legal obstacles for financing certain measures for older workers exist that prevent public employers from implementing certain measures (e.g. supplemental private health insurance, job bikes). Regarding the private sector, one participant mentioned that they would be more inclined to provide health management measures if they could be offered free of payroll tax. The participant further explained that financial incentives to use existing or potential new measures are also missing for the employees.
Facilitating external factors
Similar to internal factors, some external hindering factors have also been referred to as external facilitating factors. Unlike the internal factors, this did not depend on their availability or their specific characterization. Instead, it seems to depend on the participant asked. Consequently, hindering and facilitating aspects of the same factor can coincide.
The main themes identified with regard to the facilitating external factors are (1) positive organizational implications of national, international, or global crises, (2) implications of social change, (3) legal, regulatory, or collective agreement standards as drivers, and (4) incentives and ideas from external organizations.
Positive organizational implications of national, international, or global crises
Even though participants described disadvantages of the recent global crises for organizational processes, many participants also highlighted how they facilitated the development and implementation of measures as well as improved the working situation for older workers in different ways. The COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, facilitated the implementation of flexible working times and workplaces. But the Russo-Ukrainian War has also been stated to facilitate flexible work since buildings had to close as a result of the energy crisis in Germany. However, some participants mentioned that workplace and worktime flexibility was only temporarily facilitated. As a consequence of coping with the new way of work (i.e. working from home), the pandemic also facilitated digitalization within the organization. Some participants also stated that mobile work enabled the implementation of new measures that were not in use prior (i.e. virtual training or sports courses). This was found to be particularly beneficial since such digital measures can be offered to a broader audience than on-site offers.
A couple of participants also mentioned that the difficult time of the COVID-19 pandemic strengthened employees’ sense of belonging in the organization and their awareness of the necessity to maintain and promote one’s health, leading to more health-aware behavior. Surprisingly, one participant mentioned that the pandemic led to an economic upturn for their organization, thereby making new resources available.
Implications of social change
In addition to the impact of crises, participants also mentioned positive consequences of social change processes for implementing measures for older workers. The central aspect in this regard was demographic change and its impact on the labor market. As a result of demographic change and aging workforces, there is an increasing labor shortage in Germany. Particularly in organizations with a high share of older workers, it thus becomes increasingly important to keep them employed as long as possible. Measures aimed at keeping older workers healthy, motivated, and productive are useful to achieve this goal. In line with this, Participant #23 said: So you have the feeling that you need this because you simply have a shortage of skilled workers. And in order to keep employees in the company for as long as possible, you have to do something about it.
HR measures for older workers can serve as an important tool to increase the internal and external employer attractiveness. In light of the current labor market, employer attractiveness becomes increasingly important, thereby increasing the operational necessity to implement such measures. Additionally, the number of employees wanting to continue working at an older age is increasing (Hofäcker and Naumann, 2015). To make use of this valuable development, measures that enable such continued work gain relevance.
Besides demographic change, some participants also mentioned a perceived transformation in societies’ focus and awareness that has positive implications. This includes a general change in the work environment (e.g. New Work), an increasing awareness of health and diversity, and a stronger focus on social sustainability. All of these aspects increase the sensibility and focus on (older) workers’ needs. Moreover, several participants mentioned an increased media coverage of older people in the labor market, which further increases the sensitivity to the need for and pressure to employ older people.
Lastly, many participants referred to the technological process as a facilitating factor for implementing measures. In particular, digitalization has been mentioned as a driver of flexible and mobile work. Additionally, one participant highlighted that progressing automation can be beneficial in creating more ergonomic workplaces.
Legal, regulatory, or collective agreement standards as drivers
In line with the implications of crises, legal, regulatory, and collective agreement standards have also been referred to as both hindering and facilitating factors. Participants stated that it is important that politicians and unions aim to establish laws, standards, and collective agreements that support such measures. Examples on the governmental level are an increase in the mandatory retirement age or the additional income limit in retirement, making it easier for employees to stay employed at a later age and for organizations to offer more flexible transitions to retirement. The crucial role of politics is illustrated by Participant #19: Yes, in a positive case, if the politicians go along with it and implement it. That’s the most important thing for society. Quite honestly.
Besides supporting organizations in offering measures for older workers, official standards covering the employment of older people can also be helpful for organizations to get a direction or guideline on how to support older workers. Even more, specific standards that contain the mandatory implementation of measures for older workers can evoke pressure to adhere to these standards. One example mentioned by a participant is the employers’ obligation to contribute to occupational pension plans with deferred compensation, which was legally established in Germany a few years ago (Betriebsrentenstärkungsgesetz [Occupational Pensions Reinforcement Act], 2017).
Incentives and ideas from external organizations
Participants described two ways in which peer organizations can facilitate the implementation. First, peer organizations having a lot of measures in place for older workers can cause increasing pressure to do the same to stay competitive in the labor market. Second, in a less combative manner, sharing best practice examples among peer organizations and having a voluntary exchange of this topic can help to provide inspiration and guidance on which measures to implement and how to do it successfully. Additionally, many participants stated that they are working together with external partners or organizations to provide measures to their employees that they would not have been able to provide on their own (e.g. coaches, gyms, health insurance companies). Having external partners or suppliers provide attractive cooperation opportunities can thus facilitate such measures.
Discussion
The goal of our study was to investigate hindering and facilitating factors within and outside of organizations for designing and implementing HR measures for older workers to better understand how to foster their implementation.
Concerning the internal factors, several aspects have been mentioned with regards to both facilitating and hindering influences. These include perceived needs, support from organizational stakeholders, resources, factors in the organizational context (e.g. size, industry, organizational strategy), organizational climate and culture as well as the degree of transparency and employee participation. While the classification of these factors as hindering or facilitating mostly depends on their availability and characterization, working in a smaller organization has been viewed as either beneficial or hindering by different participants, indicating that the organizational size characteristics cannot strictly be regarded as either hindering or facilitating only.
Going beyond the organizational context, our study further revealed external factors that can influence the implementation in different ways. In particular, participants referred to implications of crises like COVID-19, social transformations (e.g. demographic change, technological progress), regulations and standards, as well as external organizations. Interestingly, building on Senior and Swailes (2010), who viewed such factors as triggers of change in general, our participants consider most of them to be triggers of both positive (facilitating) and negative (hindering) change. The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, was fostering flexible work arrangements but also decreasing health and knowledge management measures that could only be offered in person. Likewise, while some participants considered legal, regulatory, and collective agreements to be a form of support, guidance, and positive pressure, others—or sometimes even the same person—also criticized them for taking up too much flexibility and resources. Consequently, positive and negative aspects of the same external factor can coexist.
Another aspect worth mentioning is the finding that there are more diverse themes for facilitating than hindering factors, particularly from the external perspective. This was also reflected in a higher number of coded segments and aligns with the findings on internal influencing factors from Napathorn (2023). While our study does not aim to quantify the qualitative findings, this observation still suggests that participants found it easier to identify and discuss facilitators than barriers to implementing HR measures for older workers. One explanation for this finding might be that they were first asked about facilitating factors in the interview. Since there is an overlap in the general topics (e.g. COVID-19 can be both facilitating and hindering), it might be that the responses to the hindering factors were shorter due to this order of questions. However, while this might explain the diverging depth of responses to similar topics, it does not explain the diverging number of (sub)themes.
Implications for theory
By taking an open, qualitative approach to studying contextual influencing factors for the implementation of HR measures for older workers, we were able to expand prior findings and examine the transferability of general intervention and change models to the specific context of aging workforces.
Comparing our results regarding the internal factors to Boehm et al. (2021), we also find support that unionization, firm size and age structure, ageism, the organizational climate, and managers play an important role. Expanding their model, we were able to differentiate hindering and facilitating mechanisms regarding these factors, thereby demonstrating the ambiguity of contextual influences. For example, depending on the type of organizational climate and culture considered, it could have facilitating or hindering effects (e.g. age-friendly vs age-hostile organizational climate). Hence, when considering organizational climate and culture as an antecedent for HR measures for older workers, we carefully have to select and define the type of climate or culture under investigation. We further identified additional influencing factors (e.g. resources, alignment with organizational strategy, transparency, and resistance to change), showing that further empirical research is needed to adequately capture the organizational situation. Similarly to these internal factors, we did find support for all external factors proposed by Boehm et al. (2021). Again, the differentiation into hindering and facilitating mechanisms highlighted the ambiguity of the factors and provided deeper insights. Regarding legal standards and policies, for example, we found that the support, guidance, and pressure they provided were perceived positively, while overregulation, lack of flexibility, and increased resource expenditure were acknowledged in a negative light. Our results further expand the model by also highlighting the role of crises, social and technological transformations, and the positive aspects of having peer organizations involved in HR measures for older workers as a source of inspiration and support.
The differentiation into hindering and facilitating factors was also beneficial when comparing our findings to the intervention and change management literature. While economic, political, and societal events are generally mentioned in existing models (e.g. as part of the discrete context in Nielsen and Randall (2013)), they are mostly viewed as having a negative impact on change processes and are not considered in more detail. However, our study shows that there are also positive implications of such events, indicating that a more differentiated perspective is needed. While the negative and positive implications of crises are focused on the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russo-Ukrainian War, as these were the two crises that have shaped the society during data collection, similar implications for other crises (e.g. inflation, natural disasters) are conceivable. The fact that many implications of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russo-Ukrainian War were perceived similarly by the participants despite the very different nature of the two events is an indication of this.
Moreover, similar to Boehm et al. (2021), our results highlight the interplay of general and context-specific influencing factors for the implementation of the HR measures for older workers, thereby underlining the need to adapt general intervention and change models to the specific context. Comparing our results to intervention and change models mentioned in the introduction (e.g. Nielsen and Abildgaard, 2013; Nielsen and Randall, 2013; Roehl, 2023; Senior and Swailes, 2010), we were able to identify additional factors that are specific to the context of aging workforces (e.g. awareness for older workers and their needs, age-friendly organizational climate). Moreover, even compared to these general models, our findings provide novel insight into additional relevant factors (e.g. the facilitating role of best practice examples and cooperation partners).
As another benefit of the qualitative approach, we were able to identify very specific aspects within the hindering and facilitating factors that have seldomly been covered in existing literature and can, therefore, add to existing models and theory. For example, we found that using working groups and pilots had been shown to be a good catalyst for change. The latter is a resource-efficient method to receive feedback on the measure, which can be used to improve its effectiveness and sustainability for the full roll-out. The role of the industry type has also not been considered in much detail. Our findings suggest that the public sector has a considerable disadvantage compared to the private sector in planning and developing HR measures for older workers due to more legal restrictions and less financial freedom.
Finally, our findings indicated an interplay between internal and external influencing factors. Crises like the COVID-19 pandemic (external) can have negative implications for the organization’s resources (internal). Moreover, demographic change resulting in a labor force shortage (external) can increase the organization’s need (internal) to retain older workers through HR measures. The need to implement HR measures (internal) can be further fostered by peer organizations having a high level of measures in place (external), thereby creating more pressure to implement measures to attract applicants. Likewise, hindering factors on the organizational level could potentially influence external factors. For example, suppose many organizations fail to implement specific measures that could be beneficial for older workers due to financial reasons (e.g. private supplemental insurance). In that case, politicians might take notice, and they could introduce the possibility of receiving tax reductions or other financial incentives to offer such measures. These are only some examples demonstrating the complex interplay of internal and external factors that should be considered in more detail in research.
Our findings can further be used to inform the literature on employee surveys on post-survey follow-up processes. Over the past decades, employee surveys have become increasingly popular in organizations (Brown, 2022; Kraut, 2006). However, conducting employee surveys does not come without challenges and risks. In particular, the absence of action after employee surveys can undermine managers’ credibility, decrease response rates to future surveys, and lead to frustration and resentment among employees (Church et al., 2012; Church and Oliver, 2006). Hence, it is important not only to ask employees for their feedback regularly but also to facilitate the development of post-survey follow-up measures (Brown, 2022). Yet, these post-survey follow-up processes are not often implemented (Church et al., 2012). Huebner and Zacher (2021) provide a comprehensive model for post-survey follow-up processes in general, including both their antecedents and outcomes. Concerning external antecedents, they so far only propose national culture and industry category to play a role. Regarding internal antecedents, they consider organizational structure, resources, climate, and strategy as well as organizational stakeholders. The more general hindering and facilitating factors for the implementation of HR measures for older workers identified in our study can serve as guidance to expand these antecedents in the survey context. For example, the finding that working groups and pilots were a good catalyst for change indicates that establishing working groups to follow up on the survey results immediately after might facilitate post-survey follow-up processes.
Implications for practice
As the Baby Boomers are nearing retirement, strategies on how to retain older workers’ health, motivation, and employability as long as possible are gaining importance (Beier et al., 2022). Our findings can aid in strategic organizational decision-making to foster the implementation of HR measures that support older workers.
First, practitioners can use the findings on the internal influencing factors to make targeted use of facilitating factors in order to initiate and accelerate positive change for their older workforce. For example, it has been shown to be advantageous to clearly define responsibilities within the organization and to provide enough resources (both financially and time-wise) to implement HR measures for older workers. Likewise, in line with prior research (Fraser et al., 2009; Huebner and Zacher, 2021; Wiley, 2012), our study has shown that a participative approach has many benefits. While this does refer to (upper) management, as they are essential drivers of change processes, this also refers to including employees. Besides assessing their needs and opinions in surveys, cross-departmental working groups and test phases have been shown to be good drivers of change. With the former, the task of developing HR measures for older workers can be clearly assigned, and the working groups can profit from the different perspectives and competencies that come together. With the latter, organizations can receive quick and easy-to-reach feedback on a planned measure prior to its full rollout. This can help to create a measure that is more easily accepted by employees and could also be a useful argumentation aid if resources for a full rollout have not been released yet. At the same time, findings on the hindering internal factors can be used to address these factors as early as possible, or at least to be aware of them and take them into account in the planning process to drive change in the organization despite these challenges.
Second, knowledge about external influencing factors, particularly the hindering restrictive factors, can help practitioners to make more informed plans and decisions. They could also try to take advantage of some of these factors. The greater media coverage of older workers, for example, could be used in the internal communication to emphasize the need for change.
Limitations and future research directions
A strength of our study is the qualitative research design, which allows for rich data collection, analysis, and interpretation of social phenomena (Langley and Abdallah, 2011). However, even though we were able to capture some temporal aspects through participants’ evaluation of organizational change processes, the study had a cross-sectional design. Thus, the only causal inferences could be made based on participants’ perceptions and assessments. Future research is needed to take a closer look at the causal processes underlying the influence of internal and external contextual factors for HR measures for older workers. Moreover, follow-up qualitative research could help to develop a process model to depict the interplay between internal and external factors. Quantitative research could then be used to test the proposed relationships (Bacharach, 1989), ideally using a longitudinal or experimental design that allows for causal conclusions (Huebner and Zacher, 2021).
Another strength of our study is the inclusion of both public and private organizations from different industries and of different sizes to gain enriched insights into the phenomena studied (Eisenhardt, 1989). The sometimes contrasting views illustrated in the results indicate that this was achieved. However, our purposeful sampling could have imposed a bias since we might have collected data from a nonrepresentative sample. For example, it could be that people who have a deeper interest in the topic or have already taken action in the topic area are more willing to share their insights and thus agree to participate. However, as our study has shown, some participants reported that no new HR measures for older workers were implemented in the last couple of years.
Future research could profit from sampling a more diverse selection of organizational stakeholders. A majority of our participants were working in the HR department. As prior research has shown that perceptions of measures in the organization can differ (Nishii et al., 2018), it could be beneficial to gather insights from other stakeholders (e.g. top management, managers, and employees) to incorporate their perceptions. Such a multi-source data collection could enable multi-level models that better illustrate the processes within organizations.
Another strength of our study was the strong focus on a specific context (i.e. aging workforces). In looking at a specific topic, we were able to identify very detailed and broad influencing factors that add to existing theory. As a result, some of the identified influencing factors are specific to this context (e.g. tension between age groups, demographic change). While focusing on this specific context is important in light of current demographic developments, the question remains how much of the identified themes are transferable to other or more general contexts (Gioia, 2021). Future research could look at other specific types of HR measures or contexts for those measures (e.g. focusing on different target groups like working refugees or family-friendly HR measures) to investigate the transferability of our findings and the pre-existing models to other specific contexts.
Lastly, we conducted the study in Germany, and the study results thus stem from the German context. By conducting replication studies to identify hindering and facilitating internal and external factors in other countries, researchers could identify and share best practices, such as legal and regulatory standards.
Footnotes
Appendix 1
Codes and sample quotes of identified themes.
| Main theme | Subtheme | Codes and sample quotes |
|---|---|---|
| Hindering internal factors | ||
| Shortage of addressable needs for measures | No (perceived) need | No operational necessity recognized: So we work very reactively here at the company. And sometimes a little prevention would be better. But the fact is, where there’s a problem, a solution is found. And when it comes to continuing to work after retirement age, we don’t have a problem. (Participant #16) Already a high number of measures: To be honest, I don’t remember that there was any great potential for improvement in our company. If there had been something there, I think we would have implemented something. (Participant #9) No perceived benefit to measures: Some companies offer gym memberships or something like that. We looked into it. It’s really expensive per employee for the fact that they possibly don’t use it. And then, as a company, I pay something for a service, and the gym gets richer from it, and nobody goes. That’s nonsense. (Participant #16) Other topics are more important: It’s not just this topic. There are dozens of topics somewhere on the agenda where you actually say, “we urgently need to get to work” in view of this demographic change. [. . .] That makes it really difficult to tackle such things. (Participant #3) |
| Different needs | Different needs by age group: And yes, doing a balancing act between what young people expect, which is actually very different from what − I’m [age] − what I’ve experienced in my professional life and what I expect from the next few years. That’s just the way it is. And that’s difficult. (Participant #11) |
|
| Exaggerated expectations | I sometimes find this kind of trend really remarkable. You give something, and then within months, it’s suddenly not enough. And more and more people want it. I always find that interesting. And there’s also a trend towards demanding everything. (Participant #3) | |
| Lack of commitment of the top management | Lack of awareness of the topic | So if you say that the problem is not recognized by the management, then it will not be implemented. (Participant #22) |
| Lack of prioritization of the topic | If I now draw a connection between company management and the topic of multigenerational working: Some pennies have dropped out of necessity. However, my impression is that there is not yet an intrinsic understanding of the opportunities and challenges involved. It’s part of the agenda, but it’s not at the center of the agenda. (Participant #5) | |
| Lack of support in dealing with the topic and the implementation of measures | It is also a hindrance if the management doesn’t support the topics. (Participant #7) | |
| Lack of support from various other stakeholders in the organization | HR department | So they delegated it to me. Then I did it, and in the end, I sent the result to the management. And then it was out of sight, out of mind for me. For whatever reason. (Participant #17) |
| Managers | They are a decisive factor. It always starts with the head, and if managers are not prepared to go down this path and say, “Well, older workers are just as valuable to us,” then it won’t work. That’s the way it is. (Participant #19) | |
| Employees | And I always think that’s a shame. You offer something, and they do it. But it has to be working time, it can’t cost anything. And people’s willingness to invest something themselves is sometimes low. (Participant #3) | |
| Lack of communication and transparency | And there is already a topic area with a larger package supposedly intended for this best ager group by the end of this year. I don’t know whether this is really the case. (Participant #19) | |
| Lack of resources | Lack of financial resources | Yes, of course, then in general I’d say through all sorts of things now, inflation and so on, the financial resources. You simply say that you have to make sure that the company survives these phases. And then you’re not willing to invest money in investments that don’t have any direct positive financial impact. (Participant #23) |
| Lack of human resources | Then the time factor is, I think, the most important one here. That it simply prevents you from doing certain things. [. . .] Everyone has enough to do with their work, and that’s why there’s not enough time. (Participant #23) | |
| Insufficient technical equipment | Yes, unfortunately the IT. [. . .] Yes, because of course everything depends on it now. So, digitalization is being driven forward. And they’re simply not set up properly to be able to meet all the requirements, all the demands. And that is also a real hindrance. (Participant #7) | |
| Hindering factors in the organizational context | Hindering characteristics of the organization | Organization size: Of course, this also means that administrations that perhaps also have more financial resources or larger office structures can of course make completely different offers to employees than we can ever do. So simply our size. (Participant #12) |
| Insufficient time to take advantage of measures offered | The staff also have to manage this alongside their work. So it can’t become the main focus. And it’s often “I’m not going because I have too much to do.” (Participant #3) | |
| Considered unfavorably in relation to other strategic processes in the organization | And in fact, this restructuring is currently a hindrance to the topic. Because it simply ties up completely different resources, and of course it’s not the right time. [. . .] And too many changes at once simply won’t work. (Participant #22) | |
| Unfavorable organizational climate | Tension and conflict between different age groups | Greater potential for conflict due to unequal treatment: Which was then − to get back to the point − more of a question of making sure that we didn’t lose sight of the middle-aged and the young generation. That was always a bit of a balancing act, making sure that we didn’t somehow [create] discord. (Participant #12) |
| Resistance to change | But I think that’s the biggest problem. That you might not have the acceptance. (Participant #11) | |
| Facilitating internal factors | ||
| Existing and identified needs for measures | Existing needs for measures | High share of older workers: But for us, of course, this also means that if the majority of our employees simply have a higher age, then we also have to make changes at this point. (Participant #11) |
| Identification and clarification of needs for measures | And here, too, we simply see the need brought to us by employees, and to which we then want to and must respond. (Participant #5) | |
| Existing commitment of the top management | Awareness of the topic | What is certainly also beneficial is that top management and staff representatives also see these issues. (Participant #12) |
| Prioritization of the topic | So, in our construct, it’s very clear when the management and the leadership team recognize the problem or the issue and really see it as a priority. And say, “Ok, it’s important to work on this now.” So, this commitment from the top management level is definitely beneficial. It wouldn’t happen otherwise. (Participant #22) | |
| Support in dealing with the topic and implementation of measures | Well, that the shareholders play along, of course. It’s that money thing again. That you were able to convince them. Even if they perhaps wouldn’t have thought of spending money on this or that on their own. But that you were able to convince them and that they then opened up the [money] pots. (Participant #2) | |
| Existing support from various other stakeholders in the organization | HR department | I can only tell you from our HR department. We simply shed more and more light on this topic ourselves and also tried to make the departments more aware of it. It always has to come from HR to some extent. (Participant #19) |
| Managers | It’s also a big one [role] because it always goes through the managers. They are the ones who communicate with the employees. And they are also usually the ones who receive the requests when there are special needs. They are also often the ones who initiate and forward them and recognize the employees’ needs. (Participant #17) | |
| Employees | And I think it’s great that so many colleagues are willing to do it [being a digital mentor]. It’s more or less an honorary position. They do it alongside their actual work. And you always need people to join in. (Participant #7) | |
| Employee representatives | And then, logically, the employee representatives have to go along with this. So works councils also have to play their part. And I think they do on the whole. We have a really good works council culture here. That’s all conducive. (Participant #19) | |
| Employee acceptance of measures | What else was beneficial? Yes, the fact that we have such grateful employees. They’re really happy to accept everything and don’t say, “Oh, what’s this nonsense here again?” or anything like that. (Participant #2) | |
| Available resources | Available financial resources | The money available. Quite simply. If I have a budget to take action, then of course it’s easier than if the organization is already going down the drain. Then they won’t do anything. [. . .] So money will always play a role. (Participant #19) |
| Available human resources | So what can certainly be conducive to implementing the measures is to give the people involved − regardless of who they are − the necessary capacity to do so. (Participant #12) | |
| Facilitating factors in the organizational context | Facilitating characteristics of the organization | Organization size: Yes, but we don’t actually have any problems with that because of the size of our company. Because of course we still have very, very direct contact with our employees. (Participant #10) |
| Alignment with strategic orientation | So now a bit general, so not only causally, so to speak, due to the singular survey, but it just fitted well, so to speak, into the general developments. I would say it that way around. Because various innovation processes have been initiated in our organization as a whole. (Participant #13) | |
| Agreed upon responsibilities and accountabilities | There is also an ergonomics officer for the [organization]. Not for that long either. And yes, I think he’s currently revising an ergonomics concept. So, there will certainly be more to come. (Participant #1) | |
| Supportive organizational climate and culture | Age-friendly organizational climate and awareness-raising | Let me put it this way: I am [age] years old now. In other words, not so far removed from the target group, although still a few years away. But I’m still very close, so I don’t think I’m miles away from this group regarding ideas, and I can put myself in their shoes a bit. (Participant #3) |
| Open and employee-centered organizational culture | And when I look at our organizational culture and the like, these processes of cultural discussions, our view of humanity, and our understanding of leadership are the basis for ensuring that we can implement the offers we have just talked about in concrete terms. (Participant #13) | |
| Participative engagement and cooperation | Active employee engagement in planning and implementation processes | And we also try to involve our colleagues in the area of health management by offering participative measures such as health circles or something like that where appropriate. [ . . . ] And I think that’s another key aspect of the whole thing. That we are really also saying that we are looking out for our colleagues and giving them the opportunity to participate wherever possible. (Participant #13) |
| Communication and transparency | Well, what we always have to do if we want it to work is communicate it particularly well. (Participant #11) | |
| Working groups and project groups | And that the topic really should be discussed in a small working group or in a small project group, a small team. And you say, “Ok, pay attention. What are the measures and projects that we want to start? And how do we do it?”. (Participant #3) | |
| Interdepartmental cooperation | And I have to say that it is also very positive when you use a cross-divisional approach. (Participant #1) | |
| Managerial training | And we now have new leadership-camps for leadership in general. Where managers are once again sensitized to the topic of diversity and equal opportunities. This means that managers of such persons are also sensitized to this and pay more attention to it. (Participant #15) | |
| Test phases and piloting | And we also have more of an opportunity to enter into an exchange with these pilots to ask, “Is this the information you need? What else would you like?”. This makes it a little easier for us to evaluate whether the offer is suitable or not. (Participant #1) | |
| Gathering feedback on measures | Yes, for example, we also [. . .] sent a knowledge relay right across the [organization] and said, “Guys, take a look at this. Can you envision this? Are you missing something in a form like this or something?.” [. . .] But I’ve had good experiences with this recently. (Participant #1) | |
| Hindering external factors | ||
| Negative organizational implications of national, international, or global crises | Lack of interaction within the workforce | And then came COVID-19. It really threw a spanner in our works. We couldn’t do any more workshops, nothing at all. That’s all really because nothing worked anymore interpersonally. (Participant #3) |
| Reduced financial and human resources | And yet, we haven’t done anything in the last two y ears. We have barely managed to get a training program off the ground. We haven’t done anything except recruit people. We had to set up a center with 60, 70 people. We have COVID-19 during the refugee crisis. And we brought in 20 or 30 people for the contact tracing. (Participant #3) | |
| Worsened economic situation | So perhaps the current economic situation could be a bit of a hindrance. So inflation, in our case specifically a high level of regulation, rising interest rates. (Participant #15) | |
| Supply bottlenecks | I think I would also include technical things. For example, it’s simply difficult to get laptops. (Participant #20) | |
| Negative effects of legal, regulatory, or collective agreement standards | Overregulation and insufficient flexibility due to standards | One external factor that is an absolute hindrance is the rigid corset of legislation on issues such as working hours. With regard to issues such as, is it now a financial advantage to be taken into account in any way if I now offer my colleagues health training? Where is the limit? What is allowed? What is not allowed? It all sucks and is counterproductive. In my opinion, we are over-regulated in many areas. (Participant #6) |
| Commitment of resources due to implementation of standards | And that is very stressful and everyone is increasingly affected by it. Of course, we also have to explain certain things. That we have complied with it. So this administrative burden is increasing for all our colleagues. (Participant #18) | |
| Negative influence of standards on financial considerations | Legal obstacles for the financing of measures: Yes, perhaps the fact that we use taxpayers’ money as a public administration. And every year, we always have to make up our budget plan, which is always decided by the council. And we are not quite so free–but there are also legal reasons for this–in the way we use our funds. (Participant #14) |
|
| Facilitating external factors | ||
| Positive organizational implications of national, international, or global crises | Stronger sense of belonging | So having overcome such a crisis together. Of course, that also strengthened our sense of togetherness. (Participant #7) |
| Driver for flexible workplaces and work times | So for us, COVID-19 was the initial spark for mobile working, for working from home. Without COVID-19, we wouldn’t be where we are today. (Participant #21) | |
| Driver for digitalization | I’d say it was absolutely essential for the digitalization of our office. COVID-19 was simply the decisive factor in enabling us to work properly. (Participant #10) | |
| Enabling new measures and formats | And now it must be said that we would not have been able to formulate many of these offers this way before COVID-19, because it would simply have been too much work to organize. And due to certain changes, things are different now and we can do and do this without any problems. (Participant #6) | |
| Economic upturn | [COVID-19] was an extreme stroke of luck for us. In economic terms, we have had the two most successful years in our history. (Participant #2) | |
| Increased awareness of health | On the other hand, COVID-19 has also heightened the awareness of some people to live and think more healthily. (Participant #19) | |
| Implications of social change | Demographic change and its effects on the labor market | Labor shortage: Of course we have an extrinsic accelerator due to the shortage of skilled workers. [. . .]. So I also see some things quite soberly as a possible expansion of the group of potential employees. (Participant #6) |
| Social transformation in focus and awareness | Changing work environments: Although I would perhaps still see that as beneficial. In fact, the new, more flexible world of work. (Participant #22) |
|
| Technological progress | Digitalization: Well, the progress of technology. In other words, everything that is now possible via video conferencing on a small budget. (Participant #5) |
|
| Legal, regulatory, or collective agreement standards as drivers | Standards and programs as support | What else should be added. Yes, in a positive case, if politics goes along with it and implements it. That’s the most important thing for society. Quite honestly. (Participant #19) |
| Standards as guidelines | I think it’s good that there are regulations for many things, because regulations simply make things clear. (Participant #6) | |
| Increased pressure to implement due to standards | I believe that if even more regulations are imposed by politicians, then employers are more likely to be called upon to implement more and think more about it. (Participant #17) | |
| Incentives and ideas from external organizations | Competitive pressure | Yes, that is of course what the competition does. [ . . . ] At some point, there is also internal pressure to do the same. (Participant #18) |
| Best practice examples | What else is needed from outside? Impulses. Well, models. Models from others. So direct acquaintances or relatives who have already experienced something positive themselves. Or from other companies where it can be copied. (Participant #19) | |
| Interesting partners and external providers | We have brought a professional partner on board when it comes to company pension schemes. [ . . . ] So we have informed our employees that we now have a partner who is happy to provide information. (Participant #2) | |
Ethical considerations
The Ethics Committee of the Leuphana University Lüneburg waived the need for ethics approval for the collection, analysis and publication of the obtained data for this study.
Consent to participate
All participants provided written informed consent prior to participating in the study.
Consent for publication
All participants provided written informed consent to publishing their anonymized data.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability statement
The anonymized datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.*