Equity theory and monetary rewards

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E
What satisfies younger versus older employees, and why? An
aging perspective on equity theory to explain interactive
effects of employee age, monetary rewards, and task
contributions on job satisfaction
Tobias Kollmann1
| Christoph Stöckmann2
| Julia M. Kensbock3
| Anika Peschl4
1
Department of Economics and Business
Administration, University of Duisburg-Essen,
Essen, Germany
2
Department of Business Administration,
Seeburg Castle University, Seekirchen am
Wallersee, Austria
3
Department of Organization, Strategy, and
Entrepreneurship, School of Business and
Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht,
Netherlands
4
Institut für angewandte Arbeitswissenschaft
(Institute for Applied Work Science),
Düsseldorf, Germany
Correspondence
Julia M. Kensbock, Maastricht University,
School of Business and Economics,
Tongersestraat 53, 6200 Maastricht,
Netherlands.
Email: j.kensbock@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Abstract
In light of increasingly age-diverse workforces, organizations face the challenge of
fostering job satisfaction among both younger and older employees. Combining
equity theory with an aging perspective, we propose that due to age-related shifts in
motives and goals, younger versus older employees’ job satisfaction will depend dif-
ferently on monetary rewards (outcome side of equity theory), task contributions
(input side of equity theory), as well as on imbalances (inequity) in the relationship
between monetary rewards and task contributions. In a multisource study with
166 managers, we found that while younger employees were satisfied primarily by
monetary rewards, older employees were satisfied primarily by their task contribu-
tions. Most importantly, a three-way interaction indicated that younger versus older
employees react differently to two types of inequity: Being proportionally over-
rewarded (i.e., receiving high monetary rewards for low task contributions) reduced
older (but not of younger) employees’ job satisfaction. By contrast, under-reward
inequity (i.e., receiving low monetary rewards for high task contributions) decreased
younger (but not of older) employees’ job satisfaction. These age-dependent effects
of job features on job satisfaction reveal important theoretical as well as practical
implications.
K E Y W O R D S
age, equity theory, job satisfaction, monetary rewards, task contributions
1 | INTRODUCTION
Industrialized nations are increasingly challenged by demographic
change, which implies a dramatic shift in the age structure of societies
(Kluge, Zagheni, Loichinger, & Vogt, 2014; Tempest, Barnatt, &
Coupland, 2002). This pervasive transformation also critically affects
organizations, with workforces not only becoming older on average,
but also increasingly age-diverse (Kunze, Boehm, & Bruch, 2011;
Truxillo, Cadiz, & Hammer, 2015). The question how to deal with the
increasingly aging and age-diverse workforce has gained high rele-
vance for organizations (Bal, de Lange, Zacher, & Van der Heijden,
2013) and has been described as “one of the most pressing challenges
to arise in this decade” (Kooij, de Lange, Jansen, Kanfer, & Dikkers,
2011, p. 198). Particularly, the key challenge to keep all members of
the age-diverse workforce satisfied, engaged, and productive (cf.,
Avery, McKay, & Wilson, 2007) has led to recent scholarly advice rec-
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21981
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2019 The Authors Human Resource Management Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Hum Resour Manage. 2020;59:101–115. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm 101

ommending organizations to address their employees in a more age-
differentiated way (Li, Chu, Lam, & Liao, 2011; Thielgen, Krumm,
Rauschenbach, & Hertel, 2015). That is, organizations need to find
ways to create work environments that satisfy the specific needs of
employees of different age groups (Bal & De Lange, 2015). However,
as a first step before being able to develop age-differentiated practices
to enhance job satisfaction, research needs to address the fundamen-
tal, but largely unanswered question “what exactly satisfies younger
versus older employees?”
This study combines equity theory (as a classic job satisfaction
theory) with socioemotional selectivity theory (as a life-span aging
theory) to explain younger versus older employees’ job satisfaction.
According to equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965), employees’ job satis-
faction depends on the ratio between outcomes received for and
inputs invested into their work. In other words, employees are satis-
fied when they feel that what they receive from their organization is
deserved in proportion to what they give to the organization. Apart
from this, socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1991, 1992)
suggests that aging goes along with shifts in individuals’ motives and
goals. We argue that younger and older employees will have different
priorities or preferences relating to the key elements of equity theory,
that is, the “receiving” (outcome) side and the “giving” (input) side.
Consequently, we examine whether younger versus older employees’
job satisfaction will be affected differently by (a) monetary rewards
(outcome side) and by (b) task contributions (input side). Over and
above, we suggest that (c) inequities in the relationship between mone-
tary rewards and task contributions—i.e., being proportionally under-
rewarded or over-rewarded—will affect younger and older employees’
job satisfaction differently.
In examining what satisfies younger versus older employees and
why, this study contributes to the job satisfaction literature as well as
to the literature dealing with aging at work—each of which have
mostly remained silent about this question to date. In particular, while
job satisfaction theories fall short of considering the age factor, life-
span aging theories fall short of considering job satisfaction as an
important work-related outcome. We suggest that equity theory and
socioemotional selectivity theory can stimulate each other and jointly
provide a more comprehensive understanding of different factors
affecting younger versus older employees’ job satisfaction.
Contributing to job satisfaction theories and particularly equity
theory, we suggest that taking into account employee age significantly
enhances the understanding of job (dis-)satisfaction among
employees. Aging does not only go along with easily observable
changes, such as those related to physical constitution (cf., Kanfer &
Ackerman, 2004). Instead, aging implies fundamental changes to the
motives and goals that individuals pursue (Carstensen, 1992). These
psychological changes are also likely to affect how younger and older
employees will react to traditionally discussed antecedents of job sat-
isfaction (e.g., pay). Giving employee age a more prominent position
within theories of job satisfaction might also help to shed light on
existing unresolved issues in the literature. One of these still unre-
solved issues relates to the role of monetary rewards in employees’
job satisfaction, that is, the question if pay promotes or hinders job
satisfaction (cf., Judge, Piccolo, Podsakoff, Shaw, & Rich, 2010).
Another area of mixed findings relates to equity theory’s assumption
that over-reward situations (i.e., receiving high rewards for low contri-
butions) cause individuals to experience dissonance and dissatisfac-
tion (cf., Miles, Hatfield, & Huseman, 1994). Our study suggests that a
key reason for these inconsistent findings lies in the neglect of
employee age as an important moderating factor in classic models of
job satisfaction.
Contributing to life-span aging theories and the aging at work lit-
erature, we advance a field of research that has mostly focused on
how overall levels of job satisfaction develop over individuals’ life-
span (e.g., Clark, Oswald, & Warr, 1996), but has not gone into detail
about differential antecedents of job satisfaction for younger versus
older employees. However, there is good reason to believe that youn-
ger and older employees derive satisfaction from different aspects of
their jobs, given initial empirical evidence that younger versus older
employees rate the attractiveness of certain job features differently
(Inceoglu, Segers, & Bartram, 2012; Kooij et al., 2011). Combining
these insights with an equity theory perspective, we suggest that
employees not only react differently to single job features (e.g., pay
level), but especially toward situations of inequity, that is, when out-
comes are not in balance with inputs. Given that the organizational
reality is complex, considering these interactive effects seems particu-
larly important.
2 | THEORY
Job satisfaction—“a pleasurable or emotional state resulting from the
appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke 1976, p. 1304)—is
one of the most critical employee outcomes (Harter, Schmidt, &
Hayes, 2002). Fostering job satisfaction among employees (across all
age groups) is a key challenge for organizations, as it directly relates to
a myriad of important quantifiable outcomes such as job performance,
employee turnover, profitability, customer satisfaction, and employee
health (Harter et al., 2002; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001;
Thielgen et al., 2015). Equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965) as a classic
theory to explain job satisfaction (Klein, 1973) views any employment
relationship as an exchange relationship between employee and orga-
nization. In that exchange relationship, an employee’s job satisfaction
results from the ratio between outcomes and inputs (Lawler, 1973).
Outcomes are rewards that employees receive from their organizations
(e.g., pay). Inputs are contributions that employees give to their organi-
zations (e.g., work effort). Employees feel satisfied when there is
equity (i.e., balance) between what they receive for what they give to
the organization (Huseman & Hatfield, 1990). However, when out-
comes do not match inputs, this inequity leads to dissonance and job
dissatisfaction (Pritchard, 1969). Equity theory has, however, not
taken into account employee age as an individual difference that
might affect these relationships.
In the present study, we argue that to fully understand job satis-
faction of younger versus older employees, the notions of equity the-
ory need to be broadened by an aging perspective. Drawing on
102 KOLLMANN ET AL.

socioemotional selectivity theory as a seminal life-span aging theory,
we suggest that along with a shift in goals and motives that younger
and older individuals pursue at work (cf., Kooij et al., 2011), there will
also be a shift in the relative importance of the “receiving part” (out-
comes) and the “giving part” (inputs) of equity theory. Thus, we sug-
gest that younger and older employees’ job satisfaction will depend
differently on (a) the monetary rewards they receive for their work
(i.e., outcomes), (b) the task contributions they put into work
(i.e., inputs), and (c) their joint impact, resulting in (in)equity in the rela-
tionship between monetary rewards and task contributions. In other
words, we introduce employee age as an important moderator for the
relationships between monetary rewards, task contributions, and their
joint impact on job satisfaction. Figure 1 shows the overall research
model.
2.1 | Age-related shifts in individuals’ motives and
goals
As people get older, they experience significant changes in a wide
variety of domains that also affect their work outcomes (see Kanfer &
Ackerman, 2004 for a comprehensive review). Among others, with
increasing age, individuals lose fluid intellectual abilities (Wechsler,
1944), but gain knowledge and experience (Ackerman, 1996). More-
over, gradual changes in personality (Jones & Meredith, 1996), affect,
and emotion (Charles, Reynolds, & Gatz, 2001) can be observed. At
work, overall, older individuals report more positive job attitudes,
experience fewer negative emotions, and describe their job environ-
ment more favorably than their younger counterparts do (N. Kim &
Kang, 2017; Luchman, Kaplan, & Dalal, 2012).
Building upon socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1991,
1992), we posit that employee age moderates the impact of monetary
rewards and task contributions on job satisfaction. This seminal life-
span aging theory states that, as individuals age, their time horizons
change such that they gradually perceive time (i.e., the time until the
end of their life) to be more constrained or finite (Carstensen, 1998).
This changing time perspective has important implications for individ-
uals’ motivation, interpersonal interactions, goal-setting, and emotion
regulation (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004; Rudolph, 2016). At a young
age, when time horizons are perceived as unconstrained, individuals
tend to focus on long-term goals such as expanding their resources,
acquiring new skills, knowledge, and experiences (Carstensen, 1998;
Carstensen, Fung, & Charles, 2003). By contrast, at an older age, when
individuals perceive their time horizons to be constrained, they start
to focus more on short-term goals directed at maintaining positive
emotions and psychological well-being (Carstensen, 1998). Instead of
expanding their horizons, older individuals focus on a reduced number
of important life domains and seek to extract deeper meaning and sat-
isfaction from these (Carstensen et al., 2003). Along with that age-
related shift in values, goals, and motives of individuals (Kooij & Van
de Voorde, 2011; Luchman et al., 2012; Thielgen et al., 2015), we sug-
gest that employees will place different value on the outcome side
(monetary rewards) and the input side (task contributions) of their
work relationships. Consequently, we suggest that the impact of mon-
etary rewards, task contributions, and the inequity in the relationship
between monetary rewards and task contributions will affect younger
versus older employees more or less strongly.
2.2 | The outcome side: Relevance of monetary
rewards for the job satisfaction of younger versus
older employees
In the public perception in most Western societies and in large-scale
surveys in the academic literature, money and income are often seen
as important facilitators of life satisfaction (Boyce, Brown, & Moore,
2010). Similarly, in the working context, many scholars argue that
monetary rewards given to employees should contribute to positive
feelings about their jobs, including job satisfaction (Gerhart, Mil-
kovich, & Murray, 1992; Rynes, Gerhart, & Minette, 2004). This is
because individuals interpret monetary rewards as indicative of their
competence, value, or worth to their organization (Gardner, Dyne, &
Pierce, 2004; Kuvaas, 2006). Monetary rewards are thus thought to
signal appreciation and recognition, thereby leading to job satisfaction
(Gardner et al., 2004). In contrast to this prevailing image of pay level
as a facilitator of job satisfaction, empirical studies find only marginal
or mixed results for the pay level–job satisfaction relationship (see a
meta-analysis by Judge et al., 2010). Moreover, there is even evidence
that financial rewards can sometimes be detrimental to the satisfaction
of individuals—a phenomenon known as the undermining effect of
rewards (Deci, 1973; Grandey, Chi, & Diamond, 2013).
Shedding light on these mixed findings, we posit that monetary
rewards (representing the outcome side of equity theory) will not
affect the job satisfaction of all employees equally. Drawing on socio-
emotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1991, 1992), we posit that
monetary rewards are perceived as more valuable by younger than by
older employees and thus contribute more strongly to younger
employees’ job satisfaction. This is because younger individuals with
their long-term time perspective have more salient concerns about
the future than older individuals (Carstensen et al., 2003). Their
future-oriented concerns also include financial concerns—conse-
quently, young individuals more frequently express apprehension
FIGURE 1 Overall research model: Interactive effects of
employee age, monetary rewards, and task contributions on job
satisfaction
KOLLMANN ET AL. 103

about their future financial situation (Powers, Wisocki, & Whitbourne,
1992). Thus, monetary rewards effectively reduce younger
employees’ concerns about possible financial insecurity in the future
(Mehta, Anderson, & Dubinsky, 2000). By contrast, older employees
with their short-term time perspective focus more strongly on imme-
diate feelings experienced in the here and now and thus worry less
about their future in general and about their future financial situation
in particular (Powers et al., 1992). Moreover, money itself has a differ-
ent value for younger and older individuals. On average, younger indi-
viduals are more materialistic than older ones (Dittmar, 2005).
Spending money to afford material goods is more important to youn-
ger individuals and is often seen as a key to self-definition and happi-
ness by them (Dittmar, 2005; Richins, 2004). Consequently, younger
people tend to see money as a means to express power and prestige
to a greater extent than older people do (Furnham, 1984). In contrast,
older individuals emphasize the importance of having enough money
to make a living and to cover unexpected expenses (Gabriel & Bowl-
ing, 2004) and focus more on the instrumental value of money as a
means “to do the things they [like] doing” (Gabriel & Bowling,
2004, p. 686).
Supporting these assumptions, when asked to rate the attractive-
ness of different job features, younger employees particularly stress
the importance of pay and benefits (Kooij et al., 2011). By contrast,
the salience and attractiveness of monetary rewards is less pro-
nounced for older individuals (Inceoglu et al., 2012; Kanfer &
Ackerman, 2004; Kooij et al., 2011). Thus, relating to equity theory,
the “receiving part” (i.e., outcomes of the work exchange relationship)
should be more relevant for the job satisfaction of younger as com-
pared to older individuals. Taken together, we thus hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1 There will be a negative moderating effect of employee
age on the relationship between monetary rewards and job satisfaction,
such that this relationship will be stronger for younger employees.
2.3 | The input side: Relevance of task contributions
for the job satisfaction of younger versus older
employees
Besides the potential to obtain job satisfaction from the rewards
received for working, individuals can also obtain job satisfaction by
giving something to their organizations (Kahn, 1990; Lawler & Porter,
1967). The feeling of making meaningful contributions at work, that is,
performing well, is rewarding in its own right, leading to job satisfac-
tion and well-being (K. A. Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee,
2007; Judge et al., 2001). Making significant contributions at work ful-
fills individuals’ basic need to demonstrate competence at work (Van
den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010). By con-
trast, feeling that one’s work input does not make a meaningful contri-
bution for the organization leads to feelings of rejection and isolation
(Shuck, Reio Jr, & Rocco, 2011). We suggest that the extent to which
employees’ job satisfaction is dependent upon their task contributions
at work (and thus the input side in equity theory) is a matter of age.
Specifically, we theorize that the positive experiences surrounding
task contributions are particularly critical for the satisfaction of older
individuals for at least two central reasons.
First, following socioemotional selectivity theory, older individ-
uals are more aware of their own mortality. Consequently, older
individuals have a growing desire to make meaningful contributions
to their environment, which can—in the best case—outlive them-
selves (symbolic immortality; Grant & Wade-Benzoni, 2009; Wade-
Benzoni, 2006). In addition, with older age, individuals tend to focus
on generativity motives—defined as the wish to guide and promote
the next generation (Erikson, 1963; McAdams & de St Aubin, 1992).
Therefore, older individuals value the opportunity to demonstrate
their experience and transfer their knowledge and skills to younger
generations (J. Arnold & Clark, 2015; Mor-Barak, 1995). In line with
that, Kooij et al. (2011) showed that for older workers, accomplish-
ment and achievement at work become more and more important.
Further supporting this, N. Kim and Kang (2017) showed that older
workers demonstrate stronger career identity and job engagement
than younger workers. Taken together, in terms of equity theory,
the “giving part” (i.e., inputs into the work exchange relationship)
should thus be more important for older employees’ job
satisfaction.
Second, task contributions should more strongly affect older
employees’ job satisfaction when considering the role of stereotyping
against older individuals, that is, ageism. The stereotype content model
classifies stereotypes along the two dimensions warmth and compe-
tence (Cuddy et al., 2009). The dominant stereotype of elderly people
is that they are high in warmth, but low in competence, as demon-
strated in multiple studies across different cultures (e.g., Cuddy &
Fiske, 2002; Cuddy, Norton, & Fiske, 2005). The negative stereotype
of low competence and poor job performance among older people
persists, even though numerous studies have shown that age is gener-
ally unrelated to job performance (e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2008). Stereo-
type threat—the threat of confirming or being reduced to negative
stereotypes about the own group—significantly decreases psychologi-
cal well-being (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). Thus, making only
little valuable contributions to one’s organization should feel particu-
larly dissatisfying for older employees, as their low contributions
would “confirm” the stereotype of the poorly performing older
employee. By contrast, older employees who make many meaningful
contributions in their jobs should be more satisfied, as they success-
fully overcame the negative performance-related stereotypes held
about their demographic group (cf., Guillén & Kunze, 2019; Von Hip-
pel, Kalokerinos, & Henry, 2013). Taken together, older employees’
job satisfaction should more strongly depend on their task contribu-
tions, that is, the inputs that they invest into the work exchange rela-
tionships. We, therefore, posit that:
Hypothesis 2 There will be a positive moderating effect of employee
age on the relationship between task contributions and job satisfaction,
such that this relationship will be stronger for older employees.
104 KOLLMANN ET AL.

2.4 | The (in)equity perspective: Interactive effects
between age, monetary rewards, and task
contributions
According to equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965), individuals closely
examine the outcome/input ratio in the exchange relationship with
their organization. They evaluate if the amount of monetary rewards
they receive is “deserved” in relation to the task contributions they
invested (T.-Y. Kim, Wang, Chen, Zhu, & Sun, 2018). In that compari-
son process, outcomes (monetary rewards) and inputs (task contribu-
tions) can be consistent with each other (e.g., employee contributes
highly and is highly paid)—a state of equitable reward that should lead
to satisfaction (King Jr, Miles, & Day, 1993). However, the out-
come/input ratio can also result in two types of inequity: Either
(a) monetary rewards are high while task contributions are low, that is,
individuals are over-rewarded, or (b) monetary rewards are low while
task contributions are high, that is, individuals are under-rewarded
(Sweeney, 1990). Traditionally, equity theorists assumed that both
types of inequity—under-reward and over-reward—cause dissonance
and thus feel uncomfortable and aversive (Festinger, 1957; Thau &
Mitchell, 2010). While under-reward was thought to go along with
feelings of frustration, over-reward was thought to go along with feel-
ings of guilt, both being associated with lower satisfaction in the job
(Miles et al., 1994; Sweeney, 1990).
Again, we introduce employee age as an important moderator
here, suggesting that younger versus older employees will react differ-
ently to the two distinct types of inequities described here. In other
words, we posit that being over-rewarded or being under-rewarded is
not equally dissatisfying for employees of all age groups. In doing so,
we are leaving behind equity theorists’ traditionally held assumption
that both over-reward and under-reward always lead to dissonance
(Adams, 1965; Sweeney, 1990). Instead, we follow subsequent
research (Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987; King Jr et al., 1993) dem-
onstrating that individuals can vary in their sensitivity to the two
types of inequity, such that they find either over-reward or under-
reward inequity more or less (dis)satisfying. Depending on their sensi-
tivity to over-reward or under-reward inequity, individuals can be
described as benevolents or entitleds (Huseman et al., 1987). For
benevolents, over-reward situations create the strongest dissonance
and thus dissatisfaction. At the same time, benevolents have a higher
tolerance (albeit not a preference) for under-reward situations (Miles
et al., 1994). For entitleds, under-reward situations cause the strongest
dissonance and thus dissatisfaction. At the same time, entitleds have a
higher tolerance for over-reward situations (Huseman et al., 1987).
Due to the age-related differences in motives and goals intro-
duced here, we suggest that older employees will react in a more
benevolent way to inequity situations. Benevolent individuals focus
most strongly on the input side, that is, on making valuable contribu-
tions to the exchange relationship with their organizations. In the
same manner, we expect older employees to place higher value the
“giving part” over the “receiving part.” Following that benevolent pat-
tern, for older employees, over-reward situations (high monetary
rewards for little task contributions) will create a particularly strong
dissonance. Over-reward will make older employees painfully aware
of the fact that they have been unable to fulfill their deep desire to
make a meaningful impact (Kooij et al., 2011) and their need for gen-
erativity (McAdams & de St Aubin, 1992). Instead, “receiving without
giving” will reinforce the feeling of having failed to achieve personal
meaning at work, posing a serious threat to their self-concept
(Krause & Shaw, 2003; Scott, Shaw, & Duffy, 2008). Moreover, over-
reward should reinforce older employees’ fear that negative age-
related stereotypes (“highly paid, but low performer”) are justified,
which should be strongly dissatisfying and trigger serious self-doubt
(Kulik, Perera, & Cregan, 2016; Scott et al., 2008). By contrast, follow-
ing the benevolent pattern, older individuals should have a higher tol-
erance for under-reward situations. That way, receiving low monetary
rewards for high task contributions should not create such a strong
dissonance for them. As older employees strongly value the “giving
part” of their jobs, high task contributions should offset the negative
feelings associated with the low monetary rewards received.
For the group of younger employees, we suggest that they will
react in a more entitled pattern to inequity situations. Entitled individ-
uals focus most on the outcome side, that is, what they receive from
the organization (Huseman et al., 1987). Likewise, we expect younger
employees to place higher value on the “receiving part” than on the
“giving part” of the employment relationship. Thus, for the group of
younger employees, we posit that under-reward situations, that is, the
feeling that contributions invested in the workplace do not “pay off”
in terms of monetary rewards, will create a stronger dissonance.
Younger employees will perceive low monetary rewards for high con-
tributions as a signal indicating that the organization does not appreci-
ate their efforts at work, threatening their self-concept (Dittmar,
2005) and leading to insecurity and concerns for their future (Mehta
et al., 2000). Moreover, in that under-reward situation, younger
employees might critically question whether their jobs provide them
with appropriate opportunities to grow and to develop, which is very
important at that stage in life (Carstensen, 1998). In contrast, younger
individuals should be less concerned when being over-rewarded for
their task contributions. Following an entitled pattern, they will tend
to feel that high monetary rewards are well deserved, irrespective of
their contributions (Huseman et al., 1987).
Taken together, we hypothesize a three-way interaction between
employee age, monetary rewards, and task contributions. Under
equity theory’s traditional assumption, both over-reward and under-
reward inequities are associated with dissatisfaction (Sweeney, 1990).
For individuals who show only low task contributions, increasingly high
monetary rewards imply increasing over-reward inequity and thus less
job satisfaction. However, following the argument that older
employees have a lower tolerance (i.e., higher sensitivity) for over-
reward inequity, we expect this negative monetary rewards—job satis-
faction relationship to be stronger for older and weaker for younger
employees. For individuals who show high task contributions, low mon-
etary rewards imply under-reward inequity. Thus, equity theory would
state that increasingly high monetary rewards are associated with less
under-reward inequity and thus lead to more job satisfaction. How-
ever, following the argument that younger employees have a lower
KOLLMANN ET AL. 105

tolerance (i.e., higher sensitivity) for under-reward inequity, we expect
this positive monetary rewards—job satisfaction relationship to be
stronger for younger and weaker for older employees. Taken together,
we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 3 There will be a three-way interaction between employee
age, monetary rewards, and task contributions. Under (a) low task contri-
butions, the monetary rewards—job satisfaction relationship will be more
negative for older than for younger employees and under (b) high task
contributions, the monetary rewards—job satisfaction relationship will be
more positive for younger than for older employees.
3 | METHODS
3.1 | Sample and data collection
The participants of this study were German employees working for a
global logistics company. All participants were members of the comp-
any’s management teams, that is, branch managers, supervisors, or
specialists (business developers, human resource (HR), or safety and
security specialists). Overall, 377 potential participants were con-
tacted via e-mail and invited to participate in the study. A total of
166 participants completed the survey, resulting in a very satisfying
response rate of 44%. The study was conducted online. Participation
in the research was voluntary and withdrawing from the survey was
possible at any time. Participants were provided with a written confir-
mation stating that individual survey responses would remain confi-
dential and that the company would only receive reports using
aggregated data. The final sample included 148 (89.2%) male and
18 (10.8%) female participants, which aligns with the general propor-
tion of women in management positions in Germany in general
(German Federal Statistical Office, 2014) and in the German logistics
industry (Statista, 2013). On average, participants were 46.6 years old
(SD = 9.0; minimum = 25 years; maximum = 61 years). The average
tenure was 12.4 years (SD = 8.9). The sample consisted of 45.8%
supervisors, 19.3% business development managers, 19.3% branch
managers, 10.8% HR managers, and 4.8% safety/security managers.
3.2 | Measures
To address potential issues of single-source and common-method
bias, we used a multisource approach to address our research ques-
tion. While job satisfaction was assessed with a self-report measure,
the level of monetary rewards was an objective measure of pay level,
and ratings of task contributions were provided by coworkers. There-
fore, our study follows the call of Rudolph (2016) to apply multisource
methodologies to research on aging and work.
3.2.1 | Job satisfaction
Participants indicated their level of job satisfaction using a three-item
measure by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983) on a Likert
scale anchored with totally disagree (1) and totally agree (7). A sample
item is “All in all, I’m satisfied with my job.” Cronbach’s alpha for this
scale was appropriate (α = .83).
3.2.2 | Monetary rewards (pay level)
An objective measure of participants’ monthly pay level in euro (€)
was obtained from the company’s HR system. We promised the orga-
nization that we would keep the pay level data confidential, so we do
not report descriptive statistics about pay levels here. These data are
available upon request from the authors.
3.2.3 | Task contributions
In assessing employees’ task contributions, we used a peer-rating
approach. Given that employees’ task contributions are persistently
evaluated by their social environment, especially by fellow coworkers
(Bunderson, 2003; B. P. Cohen & Zhou, 1991), we deemed peer rat-
ings appropriate in providing us with an adequate measurement for
individuals’ task contributions. In addition, that approach enabled us
to reduce common source and common method bias (Podsakoff, Mac-
Kenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Thus, we asked each participant to
rate the task contributions of their fellow managers with whom they
were regularly interacting in their daily jobs. Branch managers and
supervisors, who worked closely together, evaluated each other’s task
contributions. The specialists (business developers, HR, and safety
and security specialists) were mostly responsible for several branches
at the same time and thus interacted with the respective branch man-
agers as well as with the other specialists. Specialists thus provided
task contribution ratings for the other specialists and for the respec-
tive branch managers. The branch managers also evaluated the task
contributions of the specialists working for their branches. To assess
task contributions, we used the single-item measure (“This person
makes valuable work-related contributions to the team”) applied and
validated by Joshi and Knight (2015), which builds upon measures
used by Bunderson (2003) and B. P. Cohen and Zhou (1991). Overall,
on average, each participant was rated by 4.8 fellow managers. To jus-
tify the approach of aggregating the peer ratings for each employee,
two intraclass correlations were computed. ICC(1), indicating the ratio
of between-group variance to total variance was 0.21, indicating a
high score (Bliese, 2000; James, 1982). ICC(2), indicating the reliability
of average peer perceptions, was 0.81, also representing a high value
(Glick, 1985). Thus, our approach to aggregate the peer ratings can be
justified.
3.2.4 | Controls
As prior research shows that gender and tenure might affect individ-
uals’ job satisfaction (Bedeian, Ferris, & Kacmar, 1992; Hunt & Saul,
1975), we incorporated these characteristics as control variables into
our study. Furthermore, we controlled for the position that the
employees hold in the organization (cf., Chen & Aryee, 2007), i.e., if
106 KOLLMANN ET AL.

the participant works as a branch manager, supervisor, business devel-
opment manager, HR manager, or safety/security manager.
4 | RESULTS
4.1 | Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics and correlations among the study’s variables are
displayed in Table 1.
4.2 | Tests of hypotheses
To test our hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical multiple regression
analyses. Age, monetary rewards, and task contributions were stan-
dardized before the interaction terms were calculated. Job satisfaction
as the dependent variable was then regressed on the six control vari-
ables in a first step, the main effects of the independent variables in a
second step, the two-way interactions in a third step, and the three-
way interactions in a fourth step. Table 2 summarizes the standard-
ized betas (β) and the (incremental) explained variance for each step.
Moreover, simple slopes and differences between slopes were tested
by using Dawson and Richter’s (2006) methodological approach.
First, in Hypothesis 1, we predicted that employee age would
moderate the relationship between monetary rewards (pay level) and
job satisfaction. Model 1 shows that, after accounting for the control
variables and the main effects of age and monetary rewards, the two-
way interaction between age and monetary rewards had a significant
negative effect on job satisfaction (β = −.21, p < .01), which indicates
support for Hypothesis 1. To further examine this interaction, we
plotted the moderating effect for high (1 SD above the mean) and low
(1 SD below the mean) monetary rewards in Figure 2, following
J. Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken’s (2003) approach. In line with our
hypothesis, younger employees showed a positive relationship
between monetary rewards and job satisfaction (simple slope: β = .30,
p < .10). For older employees, the simple slope was not statistically
significant (β = −.20, ns), indicating that monetary rewards did not sig-
nificantly affect their job satisfaction.
Second, we examined the moderating effect of age on the rela-
tionship between task contributions and job satisfaction, as stated in
Hypothesis 2. As shown in Model 2, there was a significant interaction
effect of employee age and task contributions on job satisfaction
(β = .20, p < .01). The moderating effect of age and task contributions
on job satisfaction is plotted in Figure 3. In line with Hypothesis 2,
task contributions related positively to job satisfaction for older
employees (simple slope: β = .59, p < .001), while there was no signifi-
cant effect among younger employees (simple slope: β = .13, ns).
Third and finally, we tested the hypothesized three-way interac-
tions between age, monetary rewards, and task contributions. Consis-
tent with Hypothesis 3, the three-way interaction had a significant
effect on job satisfaction (β = .16, p < .05). To further examine the sig-
nificant three-way interaction, we plotted the effects in Figure 4. In
line with our hypothesis, under low task contributions, older
employees’ job satisfaction was more negatively related to job satis-
faction than that of younger employees. Supporting the idea that
older employees have a higher sensitivity for over-reward inequity,
we found a strong negative impact of monetary rewards on older
employees’ job satisfaction under low task contributions (simple slope:
β = −.53; p < .01). For younger employees, we expected that due to
their higher tolerance for over-reward inequity, the negative mone-
tary rewards—job satisfaction relationship would be weaker. Exceed-
ing our prediction, we even found a marginally significant positive
relationship of monetary rewards on younger employees’ job satisfac-
tion under low task contributions (simple slope: β = .37; p < .10).
Further in line with our hypothesis, we found that under high task
contributions, monetary rewards were more strongly positively related
to younger than to older employees’ job satisfaction. Indicating youn-
ger employees’ stronger sensitivity for under-reward inequity, they
are dissatisfied when their high task contributions go along with low
TABLE 1 Means, SDs, and correlations among variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Tenure (position) 12.35 8.87
2. Gendera
0.11 0.31 −.17*
3. Positionb
(BD) 0.19 0.40 −.06 .17*
4. Position (BM) 0.19 0.40 −.01 .03 −.24**
5. Position (HR) 0.11 0.31 .01 .00 −.17* −.17*
6. Position (SUP) 0.46 0.50 .00 −.13 −.45*** −.45*** −.32***
7. Age 46.61 8.99 .68*** −.13 −.13 .14 .02 −.09
8. Monetary rewards .31*** −.17* −.49*** .72*** −.09 −.11 .42***
9. Task contributions 5.16 1.10 −.08 .14 .00 −.08 .15 −.04 −.04 −.15
10. Job satisfaction 5.83 1.13 .04 .06 −.12 .01 .13 .00 .11 .07 .33***
Note: N = 166.
a
For gender, 0 = male, 1 = female.
b
For position, dummies were coded; five categories: Business Development Manager (BD), Branch Manager (BM), Human Resources Manager (HR),
Supervisor (SUP), and Safety/Security Manager (= baseline category).
KOLLMANN ET AL. 107

monetary rewards, but increasingly satisfied with higher amounts of
pay (simple slope: β = .54; p < .01). By contrast, supporting the idea
that older employees have a higher tolerance for under-reward ineq-
uity, their monetary rewards—job satisfaction relationship is weaker
under high task contributions (simple slope: β = .40; p < .10).
To shed more light on the differential role that monetary rewards
and task contributions played in younger versus older employees’ job
satisfaction, we additionally performed two slope difference tests for
the two different age groups. For younger employees, we observed
that monetary rewards positively related to their job satisfaction
under conditions of both low task and high task contributions. The
slope difference test was insignificant (t = 0.72, ns), supporting the
impression that for younger employees, the positive effect of mone-
tary rewards on job satisfaction was comparable in magnitude,
TABLE 2 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting job satisfaction from age, monetary rewards (pay level), and task contributions
Model 1 (H1) Model 2 (H2) Model 3 (H3)
Job satisfaction ΔR2
β ΔR2
β ΔR2
β
Controls .04 .04 .04
Tenure (position) .00 .05 .10
Gender .08 .10 .10
Position (BD) −.07 −.08 −.02
Position (BM) .02 .02 −.03
Position (HR) .13 .12 .12
Position (SUP) .02 .06 .04
Main effects .01 .10*** .11**
Age .02 .07 −.10
Monetary rewards .04 .16
Task contributions .32*** .26**
Two-way interactions .04** .04** .07**
Age × monetary rewards −.21** −.21**
Age × task contributions .20** .23**
Monetary rewards × task contributions .02
Three-way interaction .02*
Age × monetary rewards × task contributions .16*
Total R2
.08 .17 .23
Note: N = 166. Standardized betas are reported.
*p < .05;; **p < .01;; ***p < .001.
FIGURE 2 Plot of the two-way interaction effect among age and
monetary rewards on job satisfaction
FIGURE 3 Plot of the two-way interaction effect among age and
task contributions on job satisfaction
108 KOLLMANN ET AL.

regardless of their simultaneous level of task contributions. By con-
trast, the slope difference test for older employees was significant
(t = 14.67; p < .001), indicating that for older employees, the relation-
ship between monetary rewards and job satisfaction is dependent on
the level of task contributions (negative when task contributions are
low, but marginally positive when task contributions are high).
5 | DISCUSSION
Employee age has become a key factor in management research (Bal,
de Lange, Ybema, Jansen, & van der Velde, 2011). Maintaining and
enhancing the job satisfaction of younger and older employees is
highly relevant if organizations want to harness the benefits of an
age-diverse workforce (cf., Backes-Gellner & Veen, 2013; Stone &
Deadrick, 2015). However, neither classic job satisfaction theories nor
life-span aging theories go into detail about the question of what sat-
isfies younger versus older employees and why, which is why in-depth
insights about how to develop age-differentiated human resource
management solutions are currently lacking (Schalk et al., 2010). We
suggest that this shortcoming can be addressed by combining equity
theory as a traditional job satisfaction theory with an aging perspec-
tive. We argued that the age-related shifts in motives and goals
described in socioemotional selectivity theory (as a seminal life-span
aging theory) would also go along with a shift in the priorities or pref-
erences relating to the “receiving” (outcome) versus “giving” (input)
sides of equity theory. That way, this study introduced employee age
as an important moderator of the impact of monetary rewards (pay
level) and task contributions on job satisfaction.
We found support for the two-way and three-way interactions
proposed. The findings supported our assumption that the “receiving
part” (outcome side) of equity theory would play a stronger role in
younger employees’ job satisfaction, while the “giving part” (input
side) would play a stronger role in older employees’ job satisfaction.
That is, monetary rewards positively contributed to younger (but not
to older) employees’ job satisfaction, while task contributions
enhanced older (but not younger) employees’ job satisfaction. Over
and above, we found a three-way interaction indicating that inequity
between monetary rewards and task contributions affected younger
versus older employees’ job satisfaction differently. Our findings
supported our reasoning that older employees would react to inequity
in a more benevolent pattern, while younger employees would react
in a more entitled pattern (cf., Huseman et al., 1987). That is,
supporting the notion that older employees would react more nega-
tively to over-reward inequity, we observed an undermining effect of
monetary rewards on older employees’ job satisfaction, but only when
task contributions were low. When task contributions were high,
however, this negative effect disappeared and monetary rewards even
turned into a facilitator of older employees’ job satisfaction.
Supporting the idea that younger employees would react more nega-
tively to under-reward inequity, low monetary rewards for high task
contributions were associated with low job satisfaction for them. The
assumption that younger employees would have a higher tolerance
for over-reward inequity was not only supported, but exceeded, as
monetary rewards even marginally positively affected job satisfaction
under conditions of low task contributions. Thus, monetary rewards
seem to play an even stronger role in younger employees’ job satisfac-
tion than expected, while task contributions seem to play a surpris-
ingly minor role for them. In identifying these complex moderating
effects of employee age, the present study provides important and
novel findings with theoretical and practical implications.
5.1 | Theoretical implications
The present study puts a spotlight on the importance of the “aging
factor” for the job satisfaction literature and, vice versa, on the impor-
tance of job satisfaction as an outcome for the aging literature,
thereby offering insights for both streams of research. First,
FIGURE 4 Plot of the three-way interaction effect among age, monetary rewards, and task contributions on job satisfaction
KOLLMANN ET AL. 109

contributing to the job satisfaction literature, our study once more
confirms that employee age is “more than just a control variable [and]
a topic worthy of examination in its own right” (Truxillo et al., 2015,
p. 373). In particular, our findings show that even long-standing,
established theories of job satisfaction such as equity theory can ben-
efit from an aging perspective, as it helps to understand the emer-
gence of job satisfaction within different demographic groups in a
more fine-grained and differentiated way. Even more, our findings
suggest that an aging perspective can help to resolve inconsistencies
and mixed findings that have persisted within the job satisfaction
literature.
One of these unresolved issues concerns the role of monetary
rewards in individuals’ job satisfaction. Contrary to the commonly held
positive view that higher pay facilitates job satisfaction, meta-analytic
findings indicate the role of pay in employee job satisfaction is only
marginal. In addition, a potentially undermining effect of pay “has
been controversial from the time it first appeared in the literature”
(Gagné & Deci, 2005, p. 332) and is still intensively discussed among
scholars and practitioners alike (Fang & Gerhart, 2012; Grandey et al.,
2013; Hewett & Conway, 2016). In our sample, the main effect of pay
level on job satisfaction is close to zero and insignificant. However,
the interactive effects reveal that monetary rewards can both foster
or undermine job satisfaction—depending on employees’ age. In a
broader sense, this finding is also in line with prior studies offering ini-
tial evidence for the idea that job rewards are not equally attractive
for all employees and thus do not affect all employees in the same
way (e.g., De Gieter & Hofmans, 2015; Hofmans, De Gieter, &
Pepermans, 2013; Vandenberghe, St-Onge, & Robineau, 2008). While
these studies have mainly focused on between-person differences in
dimensions such as individuals’ personality, we suggest that examining
the impact of (monetary) rewards in light of individuals’ age might be
a fruitful avenue for future research.
Another unresolved issue stems immediately from equity theory.
While the idea of under-reward inequity leading to dissonance and
dissatisfaction has found wide empirical support, scholars often failed
to demonstrate the dissatisfying nature of over-reward situations (cf.,
Cosier & Dalton, 1983; Mowday, 1991). These ambiguous findings
have even brought some researchers to cast doubt on the overall use-
fulness of equity theory (Miles et al., 1994; Miner, 1984). T.-Y. Kim
et al. (2018) recently criticized that these prior findings were mainly
based on experiments in which under-reward and over-reward sce-
narios were artificially manipulated. Following their call to examine
these effects in real-life organizational settings, we find that both
under-reward and over-reward can lead to dissatisfaction—however,
again, highly depending on employee age. That way, our research also
supports the idea that individuals are not equally sensitive to situa-
tions of inequity (Huseman et al., 1987). Taken together, we would
not doubt the validity of equity theory’s main statements. Instead, our
research calls for future studies to carry forward research about indi-
viduals’ reactions to inequity, while taking into account the moderat-
ing role of individual differences, especially employee age.
Finally, in unraveling the (dis-)satisfying effects of monetary
rewards and task contributions depending on employee age, this
study also sheds light on the specific needs and requirements of older
employees in organizations. In demonstrating that their job satisfaction
emerges from different factors than the satisfaction among their
younger coworkers, our findings concur with recent calls to develop
and design HR solutions that specifically target older employees
(Kooij, Jansen, Dikkers, & De Lange, 2010; Oostrom, Pennings, & Bal,
2016). Given the different goals and values that older employees pur-
sue in their jobs, our findings support the notion that more customized
instead of standardized HR practices might be effective in fostering
satisfaction of older employees in organizations (cf., Bal & Dore-
nbosch, 2015; Hornung, Rousseau, Weigl, Mueller, & Glaser, 2014).
Whether or not customized HR practices (such as idiosyncratic deals;
Rousseau, 2005) directed to older employees will be able to foster
their long-term retention and productivity should thus be addressed
in future research.
5.2 | Practical implications
The current research has important implications for practitioners deal-
ing with the challenge of demographic change. The findings provide
managers and HR professionals with practical insights into how jobs
in general and job rewards in particular should be designed to satisfy
an increasingly aging and age-diverse workforce. Our study shows
that there can be no “one size fits all” approach to satisfy both youn-
ger and older employees (cf., Hornung et al., 2014). Instead, our find-
ings support the idea that employers should devise and implement
appropriately tailored and age-differentiated HR practices (cf., Dello
Russo, Miraglia, & Borgogni, 2017; Xavier, 2014). First and foremost,
this pertains to the monetary compensation of employees: Our results
indicate job satisfaction among younger employees can be effectively
increased by providing them with monetary rewards. By contrast,
increasing older employees’ job satisfaction is much more complex
and might not be achieved simply by giving pay raises. Instead, high
pay levels can even have a negative impact on older employees’ job
satisfaction when task contributions in the job are low, because being
over-rewarded in proportion to their contributions to the organization
triggers aversive feelings of dissonance. Given the differential value
that younger and older employees place on monetary rewards, we fol-
low the claim made by Stone and Deadrick (2015) that “aligning
reward and compensation systems with the values of multiple genera-
tions” (p. 142) can be an effective way for organizations to attract,
motivate, and retain an age-diverse workforce. In designing such indi-
vidualized reward systems, practitioners should carefully consider that
rewards should be allocated in ways that employees perceive as fair
and transparent from a procedural and distributive justice perspective
(Folger & Konovsky, 1989). In addition, such reward systems must of
course be in compliance with national legal regulations against age-
related discrimination (e.g., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
in the U.S.; cf., Neumark, 2009). Against this background, flexible cafe-
teria reward systems that compensate employees with a total sum, but
allow them to make an individualized selection out of different (mone-
tary or nonmonetary) benefits and rewards could be an effective and
110 KOLLMANN ET AL.

fair solution (Benders, Delsen, & Smits, 2006; Stone &
Deadrick, 2015).
Apart from the monetary aspects of work, our results also show
that the task contributions employees experience at the workplace
are a powerful predictor of job satisfaction. This is especially true for
employees of older age groups who have a strong need to make
meaningful contributions in their jobs (Kooij et al., 2011). Given the
growing focus on the retention and employability of older workers
(Armstrong-Stassen & Schlosser, 2011; Oostrom, Pennings, & Bal,
2016), organizations should thus create a working environment or
atmosphere that encourages particularly older employees to engage
in meaningful task contributions. Especially an organizational climate
for inclusion in which every individual feels appreciated and as an
important part of the team (Boehm, Kunze, & Bruch, 2014; Nishii,
2013) should not only set the ground for making valuable contribu-
tions to the organization, but also for giving employees feedback on
their contributions. Finally, organizations should give older employees
the opportunity to fulfill their generativity motives and to make mean-
ingful contributions to their social environment. One way to achieve
that could be to offer older employees expert or mentoring roles
(Kooij et al., 2011; Patrickson & Hartmann, 1995) that provide them
with the opportunity to share their knowledge and experiences with
other employees.
5.3 | Limitations of the study
The present study has various strengths that enhance our confidence
in its findings, including the use of an objective pay level measure and
peer ratings of task contributions. However, several limitations should
be considered. First, the present study is cross-sectional and thus
does not allow drawing conclusions about aging effects over time.
This also means that we cannot rule out the possibility that the differ-
ences observed between younger and older individuals might reflect
generation effects. In other words, the younger and older employees
in our study might have reacted differently because they were born
into different decades and thus grew up in different social contexts
(Smola & Sutton, 2002). However, also this generational perspective
has not been without criticism, as little or no empirical evidence for
the existence of generational differences or their effects on individ-
uals at work could be demonstrated (Costanza, Badger, Fraser,
Severt, & Gade, 2012; Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015). Scholars have
thus recently recommended life-span aging perspectives over genera-
tional perspectives (Rudolph, Rauvola, & Zacher, 2018; Rudolph &
Zacher, 2017). Taken together, while we cannot empirically disentan-
gle whether our findings are a result of aging processes over time
(as suggested) or due to generation effects, our life-span aging
approach reflects a “more sophisticated toolkit for thinking about age-
related differences” (Rudolph et al., 2018, p. 52).
The second point refers to the generalizability of our findings. Our
data were gathered in just one company in only one country
(Germany), a method that has both its advantages and disadvantages.
On the one hand, this focused research setting helps to control for
industry-specific or company-specific differences that might mask
significant effects (Jansen, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2006). More-
over, Germany generally offers a favorable environment in which to
conduct aging studies as the age structure in German organizations
can serve as a future projection for other industrialized nations
(Kunze & Menges, 2017). On the other hand, specific characteristics
of the organizational culture or the general cultural background in
Germany might have an impact on how monetary rewards and task
contributions are perceived and valued. Moreover, differences in
national social security and retirement systems might particularly
affect the relevance of monetary rewards for individuals’ job satisfac-
tion. Consequently, we suggest that the present findings should be
replicated within further international contexts.
Moreover, the participants in our study all worked on the manage-
ment level, thereby representing a group of individuals with a rela-
tively high income and socioeconomic status. Our findings might thus
not hold for employees working in other professions associated with
different labor conditions. Especially in cases of precarious employ-
ment (Benach et al., 2014) or very low overall household income,
monetary rewards might have an overall higher relevance for individ-
uals’ job satisfaction, irrespective of their age (cf., Layard, Mayraz, &
Nickell, 2008). In addition, not all jobs might enable individuals to
make valuable task contributions (Grant, 2008). Future studies should,
therefore, consider expanding our insights to employees at other
levels of the organizational hierarchy, including blue-collar workers.
Over and above, it has not been the aim of this study to make specific
statements about employees belonging to “extreme” age groups, that
is, very young and very old workers, and our data do not allow for such
comparisons. To examine job satisfaction among employees in their
first jobs or employees working beyond retirement age, we advise to
address these target groups specifically (cf., Bal, De Jong, Jansen, &
Bakker, 2012).
Finally, our sample was predominantly male. Given that there
might be gender differences relating to the antecedents of job satis-
faction (Mottaz, 1986), work values (Rowe & Snizek, 1995), and over-
all pay level (Blau & Kahn, 2007), future research should consider both
male and female, younger and older employees’ job satisfaction.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors contributed equally to this research.
ORCID
Julia M. Kensbock https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8642-1938
REFERENCES
Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Pro-
cess, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22(2),
229–259.
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnor-
mal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436.
KOLLMANN ET AL. 111

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299).
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Schlosser, F. (2011). Perceived organizational
membership and the retention of older workers. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 32(2), 319–344.
Arnold, J., & Clark, M. (2015). Running the penultimate lap of the race: A
multimethod analysis of growth, generativity, career orientation, and
personality amongst men in mid/late career. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 308–329.
Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C.
(2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The
mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-
chology, 12(3), 193–203.
Avery, D., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. (2007). Engaging the aging work-
force: The relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfaction
with coworkers, and employee engagement. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 92(6), 1542–1556.
Backes-Gellner, U., & Veen, S. (2013). Positive effects of ageing and age
diversity in innovative companies—Large-scale empirical evidence on
company productivity. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(3),
279–295.
Bal, P. M., De Jong, S. B., Jansen, P. G., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Motivating
employees to work beyond retirement: A multi-level study of the role
of I-deals and unit climate. Journal of Management Studies, 49(2),
306–331.
Bal, P. M., & De Lange, A. H. (2015). From flexibility human resource man-
agement to employee engagement and perceived job performance
across the lifespan: A multisample study. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 88(1), 126–154.
Bal, P. M., de Lange, A. H., Ybema, J. F., Jansen, P. G., & van der
Velde, M. E. (2011). Age and trust as moderators in the relation
between procedural justice and turnover: A large-scale longitudinal
study. Applied Psychology, 60(1), 66–86.
Bal, P. M., de Lange, A. H., Zacher, H., & Van der Heijden, B. I. (2013). A
lifespan perspective on psychological contracts and their relations with
organizational commitment. European Journal of Work and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 22(3), 279–292.
Bal, P. M., & Dorenbosch, L. (2015). Age-related differences in the rela-
tions between individualised HRM and organisational performance: A
large-scale employer survey. Human Resource Management Journal, 25
(1), 41–61.
Bedeian, A. G., Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Age, tenure, and job
satisfaction: A tale of two perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
40(1), 33–48.
Benach, J., Vives, A., Amable, M., Vanroelen, C., Tarafa, G., & Muntaner, C.
(2014). Precarious employment: Understanding an emerging social
determinant of health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 229–253.
Benders, J., Delsen, L., & Smits, J. (2006). Bikes versus lease cars: The
adoption, design and use of cafeteria systems in the Netherlands. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(6),
1115–1128.
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2007). The gender pay gap: Have women gone
as far as they can? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 7–23.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reli-
ability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein &
S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in orga-
nizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boehm, S. A., Kunze, F., & Bruch, H. (2014). Spotlight on age-diversity cli-
mate: The impact of age-inclusive HR practices on firm-level out-
comes. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 667–704.
Boyce, C. J., Brown, G. D., & Moore, S. C. (2010). Money and happiness
rank of income, not income, affects life satisfaction. Psychological Sci-
ence, 21(4), 471–475.
Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups:
A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly,
48(4), 557–591.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). Assessing
the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In
S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler III, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.),
Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and prac-
tices (pp. 71–138). New York, NY: Wiley.
Carstensen, L. L. (1991). Selectivity theory: Social activity in life-span con-
text. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 11, 195–217.
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Sup-
port for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7(3),
331–338.
Carstensen, L. L. (1998). A life-span approach to social motivation. In
J. Heckhausen & C. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across
the life span (pp. 341–364). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional
selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of
life. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 103–123.
Charles, S. T., Reynolds, C. A., & Gatz, M. (2001). Age-related differences
and change in positive and negative affect over 23 years. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 136–151.
Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. (2007). Delegation and employee work outcomes:
An examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in
China. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 226–238.
Clark, A., Oswald, A., & Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction U-shaped in
age? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(1),
57–81.
Cohen, B. P., & Zhou, X. (1991). Status processes in enduring work groups.
American Sociological Review, 56(2), 179–188.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
correlation/regression for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cosier, R. A., & Dalton, D. R. (1983). Equity theory and time: A
reformulation. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 311–319.
Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A.
(2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 375–394.
Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differ-
ences in the workplace: Is there a there there? Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 8(3), 308–323.
Cuddy, A. J., & Fiske, S. T. (2002). Doddering, but dear: Process, content,
and function in stereotyping of elderly people. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.),
Ageism (pp. 3–26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J. P.,
… Htun, T. T. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures:
Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 48(1), 1–33.
Cuddy, A. J., Norton, M. I., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). This old stereotype: The
pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype. Journal of
Social Issues, 61(2), 267–285.
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in
moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a
slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917–926.
De Gieter, S., & Hofmans, J. (2015). How reward satisfaction affects
employees’ turnover intentions and performance: An individual differ-
ences approach. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(2),
200–216.
Deci, E. L. (1973). Paying people doesn't always work the way you expect
it to. Human Resource Management, 12(2), 28–32.
Dello Russo, S., Miraglia, M., & Borgogni, L. (2017). Reducing organiza-
tional politics in performance appraisal: The role of coaching leaders
for age-diverse employees. Human Resource Management, 56(5),
769–783.
112 KOLLMANN ET AL.

Dittmar, H. (2005). Compulsive buying–a growing concern? An examina-
tion of gender, age, and endorsement of materialistic values as predic-
tors. British Journal of Psychology, 96(4), 467–491.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Norton.
Fang, M., & Gerhart, B. (2012). Does pay for performance diminish intrinsic
interest? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23
(6), 1176–1196.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive
justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management
Journal, 32(1), 115–130.
Furnham, A. (1984). Many sides of the coin: The psychology of money
usage. Personality and Individual Differences, 5(5), 501–509.
Gabriel, Z., & Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life from the perspectives of
older people. Ageing and Society, 24(05), 675–691.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work moti-
vation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
Gardner, D. G., Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). The effects of pay level on
organization-based self-esteem and performance: A field study. Jour-
nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(3), 307–322.
Gerhart, B., Milkovich, G., & Murray, B. (1992). Pay, performance and par-
ticipation. In D. Lewin, O. S. Mitchell, & P. D. Sherer (Eds.), Research
Frontiers in industrial relations and human resources (pp. 193–238).
Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.
German Federal Statistical Office. (2014). Männer doppelt so häufig in
Führungspositionen wie Frauen. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.
de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2014/05/PD14_
89_133.html
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and
psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 10(2), 601–616.
Grandey, A. A., Chi, N. W., & Diamond, J. A. (2013). Show me the money!
Do financial rewards for performance enhance or undermine the satis-
faction from emotional labor? Personnel Psychology, 66(3), 569–612.
Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance
effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108–124.
Grant, A. M., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2009). The hot and cool of death
awareness at work: Mortality cues, aging, and self-protective and
prosocial motivations. Academy of Management Review, 34(4),
600–622.
Guillén, L., & Kunze, F. (2019). When age does not harm innovative behav-
ior and perceptions of competence: Testing interdepartmental collabo-
ration as a social buffer. Human Resource Management, 58, 301–316.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level rela-
tionship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and
business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87
(2), 268–279.
Hewett, R., & Conway, N. (2016). The undermining effect revisited: The
salience of everyday verbal rewards and self-determined motivation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 436–455.
Hofmans, J., De Gieter, S., & Pepermans, R. (2013). Individual differences
in the relationship between satisfaction with job rewards and job satis-
faction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(1), 1–9.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., Weigl, M., Mueller, A., & Glaser, J. (2014).
Redesigning work through idiosyncratic deals. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(4), 608–626.
Hunt, J. W., & Saul, P. N. (1975). The relationship of age, tenure, and job
satisfaction in males and females. Academy of Management Journal, 18
(4), 690–702.
Huseman, R. C., & Hatfield, J. D. (1990). Equity theory and the managerial
matrix. Training & Development Journal, 44(4), 98–103.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective
on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Man-
Inceoglu, I., Segers, J., & Bartram, D. (2012). Age-related differences in
work motivation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 85(2), 300–329.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 219–229.
Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory
innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of orga-
nizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management
Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.
Jones, C. J., & Meredith, W. (1996). Patterns of personality change across
the life span. Psychology and Aging, 11(1), 57–65.
Joshi, A., & Knight, A. P. (2015). Who defers to whom and why? Dual path-
ways linking demographic differences and dyadic deference to team
effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 59–84.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., Podsakoff, N. P., Shaw, J. C., & Rich, B. L.
(2010). The relationship between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-
analysis of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2),
157–167.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job
satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantita-
tive review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407.
Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33,
692–724.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work
motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 440–458.
Kim, N., & Kang, S. W. (2017). Older and more engaged: The mediating
role of age-linked resources on work engagement. Human Resource
Management, 56(5), 731–746.
Kim, T.-Y., Wang, J., Chen, T., Zhu, Y., & Sun, R. (2018). Equal of equitable
pay? Individual differences in pay fairness perceptions. Human
Resource Management, 58, 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.
21944.
King, W. C., Jr., Miles, E. W., & Day, D. D. (1993). A test and refinement of
the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14
(4), 301–317.
Klein, S. M. (1973). Pay factors as predictors to satisfaction: A comparison
of reinforcement, equity, and expectancy. Academy of Management
Journal, 16(4), 598–610.
Kluge, F., Zagheni, E., Loichinger, E., & Vogt, T. (2014). The advantages of
demographic change after the wave: Fewer and older, but healthier,
greener, and more productive? PLoS One, 9(9), 1–11.
Kooij, D. T., & Van de Voorde, K. (2011). How changes in subjective gen-
eral health predict future time perspective, and development and gen-
erativity motives over the lifespan. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 84, 228–247.
Kooij, D. T., De Lange, A. H., Jansen, P. G., Kanfer, R., & Dikkers, J. S.
(2011). Age and work-related motives: Results of a meta-analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 197–225.
Kooij, D. T., Jansen, P. G., Dikkers, J. S., & De Lange, A. H. (2010). The
influence of age on the associations between HR practices and both
affective commitment and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1111–1136.
Krause, N., & Shaw, B. A. (2003). Role-specific control, personal meaning,
and health in late life. Research on Aging, 25, 559–586.
Kulik, C. T., Perera, S., & Cregan, C. (2016). Engage me: The mature-age
worker and stereotype threat. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6),
2132–2156.
Kunze, F., Boehm, S. A., & Bruch, H. (2011). Age diversity, age discrimina-
tion climate and performance consequences—A cross organizational
study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 264–290.
KOLLMANN ET AL. 113

Kunze, F., & Menges, J. I. (2017). Younger supervisors, older subordinates:
An organizational-level study of age differences, emotions, and perfor-
mance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(4), 461–486.
Kuvaas, B. (2006). Work performance, affective commitment, and work
motivation: The roles of pay administration and pay level. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 365–385.
Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Moneterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Lawler, E. E., & Porter, L. W. (1967). The effect of performance on job sat-
isfaction. Industrial Relations, 7, 20–28.
Layard, R., Mayraz, G., & Nickell, S. (2008). The marginal utility of income.
Journal of Public Economics, 92(8–9), 1846–1857.
Li, J., Chu, C. W. L., Lam, K. C., & Liao, S. (2011). Age diversity and firm per-
formance in an emerging economy: Implications for cross-cultural
human resource management. Human Resource Management, 50(2),
247–270.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In
M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychol-
ogy (Vol. 1, pp. 1297–1343). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Luchman, J. N., Kaplan, S. A., & Dalal, R. S. (2012). Getting older and get-
ting happier with work: An information-processing explanation. Social
Indicators Research, 108(3), 535–552.
McAdams, D. P., & de St Aubin, E. D. (1992). A theory of generativity and
its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative
themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
62(6), 1003–1015.
Mehta, R., Anderson, R. E., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2000). The perceived impor-
tance of sales managers’ rewards: A career stage perspective. Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15(7), 507–524.
Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1994). Equity sensitivity
and outcome importance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(7),
585–596.
Miner, J. B. (1984). The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging
organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 9, 296–306.
Mor-Barak, M. E. (1995). The meaning of work for older adults seeking
employment: The generativity factor. The International Journal of Aging
and Human Development, 41(4), 325–344.
Mottaz, C. (1986). Gender differences in work satisfaction, work-related
rewards and values, and the determinants of work satisfaction. Human
Relations, 39, 359–377.
Mowday, R. T. (1991). Equity theory predictions of behavior in organiza-
tions. Motivation and Work Behavior, 5, 111–131.
Neumark, D. (2009). The age discrimination in employment act and the
challenge of population aging. Research on Aging, 31(1), 41–68.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimen-
sions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2),
392–423.
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse
groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774.
Oostrom, J. K., Pennings, M., & Bal, P. M. (2016). How do idiosyncratic
deals contribute to the employability of older workers? Career Devel-
opment International, 21(2), 176–192.
Patrickson, M., & Hartmann, L. (1995). Australia’s ageing population: Impli-
cations for human resource management. International Journal of Man-
power, 16(5/6), 34–46.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(5), 879–903.
Powers, C. B., Wisocki, P. A., & Whitbourne, S. K. (1992). Age differences
and correlates of worrying in young and elderly adults. The Gerontolo-
gist, 32(1), 82–88.
Pritchard, R. D. (1969). Equity theory: A review and critique. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2), 176–211.
Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scale: Measurement properties
and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1),
209–219.
Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for
themselves. New York, NY: Sharpe.
Rowe, R., & Snizek, W. E. (1995). Gender differences in work values: Per-
petuating the myth. Work and Occupations, 22(2), 215–229.
Rudolph, C. W. (2016). Lifespan developmental perspectives on working:
A literature review of motivational theories. Work, Aging, and Retire-
ment, 2(2), 130–158.
Rudolph, C. W., Rauvola, R. S., & Zacher, H. (2018). Leadership and genera-
tions at work: A critical review. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 44–57.
Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2017). Considering generations from a
lifespan developmental perspective. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3(2),
113–129.
Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Minette, K. A. (2004). The importance of pay in
employee motivation: Discrepancies between what people say and
what they do. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 381–394.
Schalk, R., Van Veldhoven, M., De Lange, A. H., De Witte, H., Kraus, K.,
Stamov-Roßnagel, C., … Bertrand, F. (2010). Moving European
research on work and ageing forward: Overview and agenda. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 76–101.
Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Merit pay raises and
organization-based self-esteem. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29
(7), 967–980.
Shuck, B., Reio, T. G., Jr., & Rocco, T. S. (2011). Employee engagement: An
examination of antecedent and outcome variables. Human Resource
Development International, 14(4), 427–445.
Smola, K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting gen-
erational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23(4), 363–382.
Statista. (2013). Frauenanteil in verschiedenen Berufsgruppen in Deutschland
am 30 Juni 2013. Retrieved from http://de.statista.com/statistik/
daten/studie/167555/umfrage/frauenanteil-inverschiedenen-
berufsgruppen-in-deutschland/
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group
image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In
M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(pp. 379–440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Stone, D. L., & Deadrick, D. L. (2015). Challenges and opportunities affect-
ing the future of human resource management. Human Resource Man-
Sweeney, P. D. (1990). Distributive justice and pay satisfaction: A field test
of an equity theory prediction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4(3),
329–341.
Tempest, S., Barnatt, C., & Coupland, C. (2002). Grey advantage: New
strategies for the old. Long Range Planning, 35(5), 475–492.
Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment?
Tests of competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and
employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive
justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1009–1031.
Thielgen, M. M., Krumm, S., Rauschenbach, C., & Hertel, G. (2015). Older
but wiser: Age moderates congruency effects between implicit and
explicit motives on job satisfaction. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2),
182–200.
Truxillo, D. M., Cadiz, D. M., & Hammer, L. B. (2015). Supporting the aging
workforce: A review and recommendations for workplace intervention
research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organiza-
tional Behavior, 2(1), 351–381.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W.
(2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work:
Construction and initial validation of the work-related basic need satis-
faction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83
(4), 981–1002.
114 KOLLMANN ET AL.

Vandenberghe, C., St-Onge, S., & Robineau, É. (2008). An analysis of the
relation between personality and the attractiveness of total rewards
components. Industrial Relations, 63(3), 425–453.
Von Hippel, C., Kalokerinos, E. K., & Henry, J. D. (2013). Stereotype threat
among older employees: Relationship with job attitudes and turnover
intentions. Psychology and Aging, 28(1), 17–27.
Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2006). Legacies, immortality, and the future: The
psychology of intergenerational altruism. In A. E. Tenbrunsel (Ed.),
Research on managing groups and teams. Volume 8: Ethics in groups
(pp. 247–270). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
Wechsler, D. (1944). The measurement of intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Wil-
liams & Wilkins.
Xavier, B. (2014). Shaping the future research agenda for compensation
and benefits management: Some thoughts based on a stakeholder
inquiry. Human Resource Management Review, 24(1), 31–40.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Tobias Kollmann holds the Chair of E-Business and E-
Entrepreneurship at the University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany.
His research interests include digitalization, digital transformation,
and entrepreneurship with a focus on digital startups. His research
appeared in leading international journals such as Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, and Small Busi-
ness Economics. In 2018, he has been named as one of the
100 most influential economists in Germany.
Christoph Stöckmann is a Full Professor of innovation and entre-
preneurship at Seeburg Castle University, Austria. His research
focuses on behavior of individuals and teams, with a special focus
on entrepreneurial contexts. His research has been published in
journals such as Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Journal of Small Business Management, Small
Business Economics, and Journal of Business Research.
Julia M. Kensbock is an Assistant Professor at Maastricht Univer-
sity, Netherlands. Her research is located at the interface between
psychology and management and focuses on employee well-being
against the backdrop of economic and societal challenges such as
demographic and digital change. She has published in leading
international journals such as Journal of Business Venturing, Inter-
national Journal of Human Resource Management, and Small Busi-
ness Economics.
Anika Peschl is a Research Associate at the Institut für
angewandte Arbeitswissenschaft (Institute for Applied Work Sci-
ence) in Düsseldorf, Germany. She completed her PhD at the Uni-
versity of Duisburg-Essen, Germany, in 2017. In her dissertation,
she explored the role of individuals for innovation phenomena in
organizations.
How to cite this article: Kollmann T, Stöckmann C,
Kensbock JM, Peschl A. What satisfies younger versus older
employees, and why? An aging perspective on equity theory
to explain interactive effects of employee age, monetary
rewards, and task contributions on job satisfaction. Hum
Resour Manage. 2020;59:101–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/
hrm.21981
KOLLMANN ET AL. 115

Equity theory and monetary rewards

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Equity theory and monetary rewards

Similar to Equity theory and monetary rewards (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Equity theory and monetary rewards