Abstract
Optimizing opportunities for elders’ participation is a central tenet of active aging policies. This article reports on a qualitative study that examined elders’ interactions with a range of organizations, using a combination of diaries and focus groups, to identify factors that enabled or constrained elders’ participation. Three organizational practices and three elder practices were identified as key influences on positive interactions. Where elders perceived they were seen, listened to, and helped in an appropriate manner, or where they were able to negotiate for these outcomes, their participation was enabled and they enjoyed a sense of satisfaction and well-being. Where elders perceived they or their needs were overlooked, their voices silenced, and appropriate assistance denied them, or they were unable to intervene to change these conditions, their participation was constrained and a sense of dissatisfaction resulted. The findings point to positive interactions as the shared responsibility of elders and organizational representatives.
Active aging is an issue of interest to policy makers and researchers alike in relation to the health and well-being of aging societies (e.g., Futurage: A Roadmap for Aging Research, 2011). One aspect of active aging, participation, is seen as pivotal. However, while much attention has been paid to the determinants and outcomes of participation, the process of participation—the ways in which it is done and what influences its doing—have received much less attention (Barnes, 2005). Yet it is here that potentially significant insights into the benefits of and barriers to participation can be gained.
This article aims to address this gap. It reports on findings from a qualitative study into the interactions of older New Zealanders with a range of organizations and identifies elements in those encounters that contributed to and detracted from elders’ ability to participate with competence and confidence. We begin the article by exploring linkages between active aging, participation, and well-being 1 and outlining the research questions that guided the study. Next, we explain the methods used in conducting the research before presenting and discussing the results, their contribution to the literature, and implications for practice and policy.
Active Aging, Participation, and Well-Being
Research interest in active aging and associated concepts such as successful aging, positive aging, and productive aging can be traced back at least to the work of Havighurst and Albrecht (1953) and Butler and Gleason (1985). It is not our intention to review that history here (see, e.g., Depp & Jeste, 2006), except to say that these concepts all share a common optimistic stance and an upbeat view of later life (Moody, 2001), as well as a concern to replace negative images of old age as a time of decline, disability, and dependency with positive images of productivity, activity, and independence (e.g., Argus & Reeve, 2006). More importantly, for our purposes, is that they also share a common interest in participation as a pathway to well-being in old age. But what do we mean by participation, and how is it connected to well-being?
Participation
Participation, according to Sidorenko (2006), is the process of taking part in different spheres of societal life. Those spheres include the marketplace. Recent research conducted by the International Longevity Centre (ILC)–UK (2010) into older consumers’ patterns of shopping and influences on their consumer behavior identified that an inability to access goods and services can have a negative impact on elders’ quality of life, resulting in social exclusion and isolation. This study along with others—for example, Hare, Kirk, and Lang’s (1999) research into elders’ good and bad shopping experiences and Pettigrew, Mizerski, and Donovan’s (2005) study of older supermarket shoppers—have all identified physical barriers to elders’ participation in the retail environment, including the lack of functionality of shopping equipment, inappropriate placement of products on shelves, and issues with reading signs and product labels. Other studies have found that the needs of older consumers can be marginalized by advertisers (Long, 1998) and overlooked by retailers and manufacturers (Thomas & Peters, 2009). At the same time, older consumers have been identified as less likely to complain about products and services than the consumer population as a whole (ILC-UK, 2010).
On a more positive note, studies have found that personalized customer service is important to older consumers (Moschis, Curasi, & Bellenger, 2004), with the opportunity to develop friendships with frontline staff being of particular importance (Danaher, Conroy, & McColl-Kennedy, 2008). Yet despite a growing interest in older consumers and recognition of their growing importance to the economy, the well-being of older consumers remains an underresearched area (Baron, 2008).
Well-Being
Well-being is a broad and complex notion (Schwanen & Ziegler, 2011) often applied to individuals in terms of the satisfaction of their preferences and/or the exercise of their capabilities. The concept of capabilities includes an individual’s ability to summon resources and exercise a degree of control, or agency, over his or her environment. This approach to well-being draws on the work of Sen (e.g., Sen, 1993) and recognizes positive feelings and resourcefulness as important components. The notion of positive feelings includes individual emotional responses and judgments of life satisfaction (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999).
Resourcefulness, on the other hand, encompasses agency and a mix of discursive, personal, and social resources (Davies, 1990), including (a) active sense-making abilities that offer alternative ways of seeing and being and the possibility that circumstances are not inevitable but could be otherwise; (b) personal resources, such as knowledge, skills, wealth, status, and strength, as well as the ability to mobilize resources to achieve desired outcomes; and (c) social resources, including membership of social networks and ability to access agentic others who can support, mediate, or otherwise intercede to assist.
But as Schwanen and Ziegler (2011) point out, resourcefulness is not simply an attribute of individuals; it also emerges from interactions between individuals and their environments—social, cultural, physical, and institutional. Environments here refer to patterned systems of rules and resources that can constrain and facilitate individual choices and actions (e.g., Marshall & Clarke, 2010). Essentially, resourcefulness enables participation because it is about knowing the rules of engagement—what to do, what not to do, and how to work within or challenge the rules and boundaries of a particular decision or situation—and therefore how to operate with competence and confidence to achieve one’s goals. In particular, confidence and competence can be enabled when the resources an individual is able to draw on and execute matches the demands of a particular situation.
However, competence and confidence can also be eroded by unfamiliar or excessive demands. Hendricks (2010) argues that older people can encounter “the condition of ill-matched competencies” (p. 255) when resources (e.g., physical strength, life scripts, skills) that stood them in good stead over many years are no longer available, appropriate, or effective and may even be devalued in new situations. In a similar vein, Nussbaum and Baringer (2000) stressed the importance for successful aging of adapting to changing environments and conditions by continuously learning new communication competencies and behaviors. All of this suggests that an important aspect of resourcefulness, and therefore participation and active aging, is not just the ability to access and use familiar skills and knowledge but to keep those skills current in order to deal competently and confidently with changing circumstances and environmental challenges.
In summary, there is evidence to suggest that the capacity to age positively—to enjoy a good quality of life in older age—is enhanced by optimizing opportunities to participate. It is also widely recognized that levels of participation are influenced by personal and environmental factors. It is therefore likely that participation will be enabled and a positive sense of well-being will result from interactions in which there is a good match between an individual’s ability to call on and use resources available to them in any particular situation, and be negatively impacted by a mismatch between resources and situational demands. But what constitutes a good match or a bad match? What actions or communicative behaviors contribute to good matches and bad matches? These concerns prompted the following research questions in relation to elders’ participation in and with organizations:
RQ1: What characteristics and practices of organizations influence the quality of elders’ interactions with organizations?
RQ2: What characteristics and practices of elders influence the quality of their interactions with organizations?
Study and Method
The research questions were addressed in a 3-year, multiphase research project, the overall goal of which was to improve elders’ participation in and with organizations. In Phase 1, the interaction-experiences of elders and front-line staff were identified and mapped. In Phase 2, a framework of facilitating practices was collaboratively developed from these maps. In Phase 3 (ongoing) the framework is being “live” tested and refined in three organizations. In Phase 4, the findings will be collaboratively reviewed and disseminated. This article reports on a subset of participants and data drawn from the first phase of the project, as explained below.
Research Team and Study Design
The six-person research team consisted of three communication scholars: a sociologist, a social geographer, and an economist. All members of the team had prior experience researching with older people.
We adopted a qualitative research design using an interpretive lens to focus on the richness of participants’ experiences (Creswell, 1998) and tap into their lay understandings of participation and well-being and the factors that contribute to it (Bowling & Gabriel, 2007). In particular, we used a participatory action research approach because it enabled us to involve older people as active research participants in the production of knowledge (Walker, 2007) and contribute directly to elders’ quality of life enhancement (Wahl & Oswald, 2010). Ethics approval for the study was obtained before proceeding with the field work.
Participant Recruitment
Elders over the age of 65 were recruited from a range of community, church, recreation, and service clubs. The recruitment process involved one of the research team (the first author) contacting community groups and making arrangements to address the membership face-to-face at the group’s usual weekly or monthly forum. Initially 53 elders were successfully recruited. The size of the participant sample was limited due to time and budget constraints, but as data collection proceeded it also became apparent that saturation had been reached with this particular sample and attempts to recruit additional participants were abandoned.
The 53 participants were organized into 10 cohorts or groups of participants who met together with the researchers (usually the first author) three times—an initial meeting to explain procedures, followed by two focus groups. Initially, the aims of the research and the roles and responsibilities of the researchers and participants were satisfactorily explained, and the recruits signed consent forms. The size of the cohort groups (and thus the focus groups) varied between three and seven members.
Data Collection
Participants were involved in a concurrent, two-step process of collecting data. They were requested to keep a written record of their interactions with organizations in an observation log, or “Olog,” a form of event contingent diary (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003) over a 6- to 8-week period. Each was also asked to participate in two focus groups to discuss these documented experiences and their observations and reflections on these experiences. This combination of methods had the benefit of providing alternative ways for participants to convey their experiences; additionally the Ologs provided a means of aiding recall in the focus groups.
The Olog booklets issued to participants consisted of 20 templates each containing 12 questions, 10 structured and 2 unstructured. The 10 structured or survey-style questions asked participants to indicate the mode of interaction (e.g., face-to-face or telephone), the purpose of the interaction, the role they played in it (e.g., as a customer, employee, volunteer, etc.), the frequency of their interaction with the organization, and their actual, expected, and typical levels of satisfaction with this and similar interactions. Two open-ended questions provided participants with the opportunity to reflect on what contributed to their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the interaction. A total of 498 observations were recorded in the Ologs. (A copy of the Olog instrument can be obtained from the authors on request.)
For each cohort, the first focus group was held 1 to 2 weeks after the initial meeting. In it, each participant, in turn, was invited to talk about his or her initial experiences recording observations in the Ologs and to select one positive and one negative interaction experience to share with the group. This session provided participants with the opportunity to clarify any issues they might have had about the Olog, or their assignment, as well as to learn from others’ experiences. In the second focus group, each participant was invited to select and talk about interactions of their choosing and then to discuss, as a group, the typicality and nature of positive and negative interactions and whether they considered their age made a difference in how they were treated by organizations. This final session with each group was digitally recorded with participants’ permission and later transcribed, resulting in 358 pages of text.
Data Analysis
The dataset for analysis here was the transcripts from the final focus group sessions. We drew on Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach to thematic analysis to identify and map patterns identified in the data. Specifically, we read through the transcripts looking for interaction incidents. An interaction incident comprised a series of statements about an interaction articulated by the participant and usually prefaced by a phrase such as “This is my positive (or negative) story.” Each interaction incident was highlighted in the transcript, allocated a unique number, coded positive or negative, and entered into a spreadsheet along with the following data: demographic details, interaction role, interaction mode, organization type, a brief summary of the elder’s actions using their own words (e.g., “I complained”; “I didn’t say anything”), a brief summary of the organizational representative’s actions using elders’ words (e.g., “They didn’t listen”; “She was polite and helpful”), and a brief summary of the interaction outcome using elders’ own words (e.g., “We felt lovely”; “It was awful”).
In analyzing each incident, we asked several questions: How is this positive interaction different from that positive interaction? What actions and conditions contributed to making this difference? Through this constant comparative method of questioning, key themes were identified in relation to the practices of elders that promote positive interactions and those that promote negative interactions, organizational practices that positively influence elders’ interactions, and those that negatively influence elders’ interactions.
Results
This section outlines the characteristics of participants and their interactions, followed by an overview of the key influences on interaction quality, a summary of the organizational and the elder practices identified in the thematic analysis, and finally a model depicting the relationships between these two sets of practices.
The participant sample consisted of 53 elders: 15% were 65 to 69 years of age, 49% 70 to 79 years, and 36% 80 and older; 75% were female; 96% were Pakeha (i.e., European-New Zealanders); 49% had vocational or university education; and 75% self-identified as having moderate levels of income. The relatively high number of well-educated participants can perhaps be explained by the requirements of the study—keeping observation logs requires a reasonable degree of literacy, while participating in focus groups requires a degree of confidence and an ability to organize one’s thoughts and speak about them publicly. These competencies may have deterred others who did not perceive themselves able to meet the project’s demands. The reason for the relatively high number of older individuals is less clear as the community groups from which participants were recruited attracted a range of ages. However, it is possible that older individuals were more likely to consider themselves “old” and therefore to fit the profile of a research project on aging.
A total of 70 interaction-incidents were identified and analyzed. Of these interactions, 79% related to the customer role, 7% to the role as patient, and 4% concerned their membership of a community group. Additionally, 90% related to commercial organizations, 6% to hospitals, and 4% to community groups. Finally, 85% were conducted face-to-face, 14% over the telephone, and 1% were a combination of telephone and face-to-face.
Four key influences on the quality of elders’ interactions were identified: interaction mode, organization type, age of participant, and the practices of organizational representatives and elders. On the whole, face-to-face interactions were perceived by participants as more positive than were interactions conducted over the telephone, although this finding must be tempered by the small number of telephone examples in the data. Small- to medium-sized organizations, such as boutique fashion stores and family-owned businesses, were seen as significantly more conducive environments for positive interactions than were large organizations.
Elders’ age was also identified as a key factor. Older participants, those aged 80 and older, were more inclined than were younger participants to feel that their age played a part in both positive and negative interactions. Age was cited by older participants as a likely explanation for the assistance and consideration of others. But age was also seen by older participants as an explanation for their marginalization, such as being asked to step aside from involvement in some club activities. In addition, those aged 80 and older were far less inclined than were younger participants to complain about negative situations. Where older participants did speak out, they tended to consider only a limited range of options. For example, escalating a matter beyond the initial complaint stage was not an action they appeared to contemplate. On the whole, older participants tended to deal with unsatisfactory situations by withdrawing rather than forcing the issue. By comparison, younger participants tended to complain more often and were more persistent in pursuing their complaints to a resolution.
Organizational Practices
Three main themes were identified in relation to the organizational practices that contributed to positive interactions with elders—listening, seeing, and helping—and three counter themes—silencing, overlooking, and being unhelpful—were identified as contributing to negative interaction experiences (see Table 1).
Organizational Practices That Enable or Disable Elder Participation
Listening/silencing involved listening to elders with patience and understanding versus not hearing or taking their views into account. Seeing/overlooking included recognizing elders and making a personal connection with them versus ignoring them or rendering them virtually invisible. Helping/being unhelpful encompassed helping elders in ways elders deemed appropriate for their individual needs versus offering no assistance or being patronizing. Each theme was manifest in a variety of ways across four different contexts.
In terms of the physical environment, such as the design and layout of many stores, the theme of seeing/overlooking was prominent. Participants indicated that their needs were often overlooked, including in relation to the absence of seating in mega-stores, the cluttered display areas of department stores, and the height of shelves in some supermarkets. Each of these areas contributed to accessibility problems, such as being unable to negotiate their way around the store, and locate or retrieve items from shelves and thus to an inability to participate easily in these environments. While these barriers could be overcome through the helpfulness of front line staff, such help was not always available.
Seeing/overlooking and listening/silencing predominated in relation to the technical environment, particularly in the widespread use of self-service delivery points. Many participants perceived that their needs were overlooked in the design of technical devices, making the use of such difficult and thus limiting participation. Examples included menus on voice mail systems that were too long and spoken too quickly, ATM and EFTPOS machines that required good visual acuity, speedy responses, and an ability to recall PIN numbers. Also of concern was the channeling of telephone calls to call centers elders perceived to be staffed by people reading scripts rather than people who could relate to them as individuals and apply judgment on a case-by-case basis. Elders also felt silenced in these interactions, lacking the opportunity to ask for help or move beyond scripted conversation. By comparison, petrol stations that offered service to those who needed it were appreciated; here, seeing and helping elders heightened elders’ sense of well-being.
In the interpersonal context, seeing and listening were valued highly. In particular, participants valued being acknowledged, personally recognized, called by their preferred name, respected, and treated with courtesy. However, for face-to-face encounters to be considered positive, the communications had to be perceived as genuine, not “scripted customer service spiel” and truly listened to. In addition, while seeing could contribute to positive interaction experiences, it could also contribute to negative experiences—for example, when participants perceived that their age induced a patronizing pattern of speech or, alternatively, a desire to be “overly helpful,” which was also considered patronizing.
The fourth context in which interactions took place was in relation to the policies, procedures, and systems that underpin all organizing and service delivery orientation. In this area, too, the issue of seeing/overlooking was key. For instance, participants often referenced being treated as “just a number” or “a transaction” rather than a human being. As a result their humanity and individuality virtually disappeared and with it the possibility of making a genuine personal connection.
Elder Practices
Three themes—presenting, asserting, and adapting—and three counterthemes—withdrawing, muting, and faltering—were identified in relation to the practices of elders that enable or disable their participation and contribute to or detract from their sense of well-being (see Table 2).
Elder Practices That Enable or Disable Participation
The themes presenting/withdrawing—elders maintaining a connection with an organization versus limiting their association with it—asserting/muting—speaking out versus silently putting up with situations—and adapting/faltering—drawing on resources such as their own or others’ skills and knowledge to deal with situations versus displaying uncertainty or inability to cope—were evidenced in a variety of organizational settings.
In all contexts these practices contributed to enabling or constraining participation and a sense of well-being. However, in the community-based organizations, particularly the social and recreational clubs to which participants had belonged for many years, effects on well-being were most poignant. For example, participants often talked about the camaraderie and the value of elder-organized social activities. But in a small number of very powerful examples, they also told of being asked to relinquish their roles on organizing committees or their involvement in decision-making activities. For example, one participant was told: “Step aside; you’ve had your day.” In such cases, participants felt stunned, unwanted, and demoralized. So much so they could not defend themselves or question the unfairness of the decision. They chose, instead, to remain mute and withdraw.
On other occasions, participants asserted themselves, speaking out against what they perceived to be an injustice. This strategy sometimes drew a positive organizational response, such as an apology and/or compensation. Other times it did not. Participants talked about not being able to negotiate their way past the first hurdle, often a frontline member of staff, or not knowing how to bring the matter to the attention of a higher authority. Often their views were effectively silenced both by their own faltering in how to make a complaint and the ineffectiveness of the organization in making the complaints process transparent.
Mapping the Two Sets of Practices
Elder-organizational practices have been presented separately above to facilitate understanding of the key elements of each; however, the two sets of practices are in fact closely intertwined and can best be represented as two intersecting axes (see Figure 1).
Elder-Organization Interaction Model
Quadrant A reflects interactions in which elders’ preferences for seeing, listening, and helping were met and elders were able to make their voices heard and receive the help they required. Quadrant B reflects interactions in which organizational representatives recognized a need (for seeing and listening) and acted or created the conditions to help elders achieve their goals when the elder did not have the resources to take action themselves. Quadrant C reflects interactions in which elders’ adaptiveness, including their ability to speak out, enabled them to overcome organizational barriers to goal achievement. Quadrant D reflects interactions in which elders’ preferences for seeing, listening, and assistance were not met by the organization and neither did elders have the resources to address the barriers they encountered. The outcomes in Quadrants A and D were of course far more certain than in B and C.
The four quadrants are surrounded by a dotted line reflecting the dynamic nature of the social context within which elder-organization interactions take place. Participants’ reflections on their interactions indicated that not only were they aging and their personal circumstances and abilities changing, but so were the societal conditions within which they and the organizations operated. Of particular concern to participants were trends to larger stores (consolidation and megatization), increasing use of technology (technologization), and the loss of the personal touch (dehumanization) (e.g., Kelly & Parker, 2005), as well as societal expectations to “question authority” and “stand up for yourself” or be overlooked and marginalized.
Discussion
Overall, the findings indicate that where elders perceived they were seen and heard and treated with respect and consideration or where they were able to negotiate for this outcome, their participation was enabled and they enjoyed a sense of satisfaction and well-being. Where elders perceived they or their needs were overlooked or their voices were silenced or neglected, and they were unable to intervene to change these conditions, their participation was constrained and a sense of dissatisfaction resulted. A discussion of these findings focuses on four areas: the interpersonal, the environment, responsibility for interaction quality, and process.
The findings support prior research in confirming the significance of interpersonal factors on the participation of older consumers in their face-to-face dealings in the context of commercial organizations. As in previous research, relationship-building opportunities with frontline staff in banks (Danaher et al., 2008) and supermarkets (Pettigrew et al., 2005) were perceived by elders to be important for ongoing participation (repeat business). As well, and as Hare (2003) also found, staff demeanor, including courtesy, friendliness, and pleasantness were key to satisfying interactions. However, our study also identified that for such interactions to count as satisfactory for participants, the communications of organizational representatives had to be perceived as authentic and go beyond “scripted” customer service forms of politeness to actually evidence recognition of the customer as an individual and a human being. This outcome requires that staff take the time to get to know their regular customers and engage with them in a way that meets their individual needs and preferences. Such a person-centered strategy may be supported by management or viewed as an expensive use of resources. It may frustrate busy people who have no interest in building a relationship with staff. It also presumes a face-to-face encounter—a preferred option for many elders but also a situation rapidly being outdated by transactions conducted with and through computerized technologies in a changing retail environment.
The findings also echo previous studies (e.g., ILC-UK, 2010) in highlighting the importance of environmental factors, including the key role of design in relation to physical and technical environments. In the present study, the perceived lack of attention paid to elders’ needs, including for seating in mega-stores and for personalized rather than automated service delivery, contributed to decisions not to frequent locations where suitable amenities were not available. Such behavior may result in elders paying more to shop at local stores or seek assistance with pumping petrol. Importantly, environmental changes such as these can act to exclude elders who are unable or unwilling or lack the competence or confidence to participate in the new mega-sized, technologized retail context.
But whose responsibility is it to optimize opportunities for elders’ participation? The critical literature on active aging (e.g., Asquith, 2009) argues that the promotion of an active aging agenda is more about meeting the economic needs of society than elders’ needs in that it emphasizes self-responsibility and the need for elders to take charge of their own lives rather than be dependent on others. Findings from the present study support this position in identifying that being assertive and adaptive to change enabled some participants to achieve quality interactions, while the lack of these skills contributed to elders’ dissatisfaction and/or withdrawal. However, the findings also point to the concept of shared responsibility, of elders and organizational representatives working together, and of this being a win-win situation.
While the findings support previous research on the topic, they also offer a contribution in focusing on process—on what elders and organizational representatives said and did that facilitated or detracted from elders’ ability to participate. In particular, the concepts of voice and visibility (or, in our terminology, listening/asserting and seeing/presenting), identified as key by Simpson and Lewis (2005), in relation to gender (in)equality and social inclusion/exclusion, proved helpful in exploring issues in relation to age and participation. Like Simpson and Lewis (2005), we noted that these concepts had multiple levels of meaning and were strongly interconnected. For example, participants felt invisible when their participation was denied because of a lack of wheelchair or walker access. However, they also contributed to their own (in)visibility by not voicing their concerns, perhaps because they had been socialized not to make a fuss, as some participants indicated, or because they did not want to appear to be stereotypically old and grumpy, as others suggested. While the exact reasons for their reluctance to speak out cannot be determined from these accounts, they are clearly complex and involve significant silencing routines practiced over a lifetime. While this silencing likely contributes to social exclusion, it is, we suggest, a cycle that needs to be broken if elders are to participate with confidence in a changing world. One way the cycle can be broken is for elders to learn new communication behaviors that will enable them to adapt to the changing social environment, as advocated by Nussbaum and Baringer (2000).
A second way in which the concepts of voice and visibility provided useful insights into participation relates to the distinction participants made between the surface level of “scripted” customer service politeness and the deeper level of making a personal connection and being empathetic. The former was seen as a dehumanizing act, the latter as personal, human, and genuine. The latter offers a lay example of Ryan, Meredith, MacLean, and Orange’s (1995) communication enhancement of aging model in which the importance of modifying communication to suit individual needs and situations acts to enable older individuals while also portraying a positive image of the aging process. In the present study, such individualizing communicative behaviors were identified as key influences on interaction quality.
Conclusion
The overall participant sample used for our study is small; thus, this study may be seen as an initial exploration into elder-organization interaction experiences. Findings are thus suggestive, based on patterns in the data rather than definitive. Future research that expands the range of participants and the types of organizations with which elders interact will provide a fuller and richer picture of these encounters. For instance, an examination of communicative behaviors within community-based organizations seems a fruitful area for research in that interactions within these sites appear to offer the potential for significant harm as well as great enjoyment. Despite limitations, the current findings have implications for practice and policy.
In terms of practice, factors for consideration include elders making their preferences and concerns clear and organizational representatives eliciting and attending to these in ways that respect the individual. These factors, of course, reflect particular cultural values and social priorities and draw attention to the need for sensitive (re)education initiatives. Such initiatives could encompass helping older people to understand that the perceived “negative behavior of complaining” (ILC-UK, 2010) is an important feedback mechanisms through which organizations come to understand consumer concerns and as such can provide an important opportunity for organizational learning. Elder education could also include knowledge of the processes through which such feedback messages could be effectively communicated—the hows as well as the whys of effective complaining.
Our findings, as well as our call for (re)education initiatives, point to policy implications. There are well-recognized physical and technical barriers to elders’ participation in and with organizations. However, these barriers cannot simply be addressed at the level of the individual elder or the individual staff member because they are systemic in nature and part of generally accepted and practiced patterns of organizing. Megatization, technologization, and dehumanization were three organizing trends identified as of concern to participants in this study. These concerns suggest that, if aging societies are to be truly inclusive, organizations will need to review their policies and practices and constantly monitor their performance of these in conjunction with elders.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Science and Innovation, contract No. UOWX0901, Engaging Senior Stakeholders: Positive Aging at the Elder-Organization Interface.