Capacity for Competence Development: Unlocking Potential for Lifelong Learning in Later Working Life

ABSTRACT

The retention of older workers has become a key policy issue in European welfare states. Consequently, there is an increased focus on how lifelong learning, or continued competence development, can extend working life. This article explores the dynamics of competence development among employees aged 55 years and older regarding their learning practices and attitudes toward competence development, based on qualitative fieldwork conducted in nine governmental workplaces across Denmark. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence willingness to participate in competence development, the article introduces the analytical framework “capacity for competence development” and highlights five factors that influence this capacity: time, economy, learning culture, energy, and purpose. The article argues that (non)participation in competence development is not static and is not solely the responsibility of employees or managers. Rather, it is co-produced by complex workplace dynamics, including policies, age stereotypes, as well as ways of organizing work and learning. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the potential for competence development and suggests that most employees aged 55 years and older want to participate but await the right circumstances. Their participation could be enhanced through an increased focus on the five identified factors in the capacity for competence development.

KEYWORDS:

• Ageism
• competence development
• later working life
• learning culture
• lifelong learning
• training and development

Introduction

In recent decades, the extension of working life has become a key policy issue in European welfare states (European Commission, 2018). With the current shortage of labor supply, this issue has become even more pertinent. While a range of retirement reforms has been implemented across Europe (Eurofound, 2016), such as policy changes aimed at postponing older worker’s retirement (Nivalainen, 2023; Oude Mulders, 2019), a concurrent strategy concentrates on researching, developing, and promoting factors that retain older workers in the workforce (Naegele, 2021; Phillipson et al., 2018). In this regard, lifelong learning is often highlighted as a potential factor.

In this study, we explore the dynamics of lifelong learning at nine governmental workplaces across Denmark. Lifelong learning, or continued competence development, has frequently been stressed as an important factor for retaining employees in the workforce (e.g., Hällsten, 2012; Midtsundstad & Nielsen, 2019; Picchio & Van Ours, 2013), and for job satisfaction (Leppel et al., 2012). However, the issue remains whether this link is causal or not, i.e., whether more courses will maintain older employees in the work force, or whether older employees prone to participate in learning activities are also prone to extend working lives.

There is a dearth of qualitative studies exploring the complex dynamics between managers and older employees in relation to lifelong learning (for an important exception, see Vickerstaff & Horst, 2022). The present study was initiated as part of a collective agreement between employers and employees in the Danish state in response to a significant decline in participation rates for formal learning activities among governmental employees upon reaching the age of 55. These employees constitute 25% of the governmental workforce but receive only 16% of the funds provided by Kompetencefonden (the Competence Fund) – a centralized fund providing resources for competence development for all government employees. We demonstrate that this drop cannot solely be explained by a lack of motivation among 55+ employees nor by managers’ choosing not to invest in them. Rather, the drop seems to be caused by a complex dynamic between workplace culture and policies, managers’ ideas, and prejudices about 55+ employees’ willingness to participate, these employees’ situation at the workplace and in their personal lives, as well as their prejudices about their own capacities for learning. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that percentages do not reveal whether the drop is also occurring with informal (new assignments, peer learning, etc.) or non-formal (mentorships, study trips, network groups, etc.) learning activities. While formal learning is defined as formalized and organized training, and informal learning as a byproduct of everyday life, non-formal learning is typically intentional and voluntary, without leading to credentials (Findsen & Formosa, 2011).

Studies have demonstrated that a range of ageist prejudices surround lifelong learning in the late stages of working life. For instance, older employees are frequently stereotyped as being less inclined to participate in training and development due to a perceived lack of ability and motivation (Wrenn & Maurer, 2004). The notion of motivation holds significant power, as it can serve as a means to exclude employees from learning activities based on the perceived lack of intrinsic motivation due to age. Age stereotypes also affect older adults’ perceptions of their ability and motivation to learn, as they may start to conform to these stereotypes. This can lead to self-limiting thinking and self-fulfilling prophecies (Romaioli & Contarello, 2021). Vickerstaff and van der Horst reported in a UK-based study that managers and older workers alike expressed ageist ideas that older workers were “too old to learn” (2022). However, another study showed that lifelong learning can be a way of counteracting the narrative of decline (Romaioli & Contarello, 2021).

What is clear from these cases is that learning in late working life contradicts common belief about older workers and their motivations, capacities, and needs to learn. However, we find a range of important and unanswered questions: What factors are important for engagement in learning activities in late working life? How do people in this age group learn ideally? What barriers do they experience? And how do their workplaces cater to their needs for learning?

Testing six common stereotypes about older workers, Ng and Feldman demonstrated in a meta-study that the only stereotype consistent with empirical evidence was that older workers were less willing to participate in training programs (2012). This could be caused by a lack of inner motivation (Yilmaz & Kaygin, 2018), self-ageism (Bodner, 2009; Okun & Ayalon, 2023), internalized ageism (Formosa, 2021; Gendron et al., 2016), chrono normativity (Riach et al., 2014), or divergence from the older employees’ social roles at the workplace. However, focusing on only one of these factors would overlook the complex dynamics at play in the workplace. Motivation, for example, is rarely merely a question of inner drive; as we show, motivation for competence development is co-produced.

In exploring the reasons, drivers, and barriers regarding learning late in working life, we have developed an analytical framework that aims at expanding the understanding of lifelong learning participation, which we refer to as capacity for competence development. In our findings, we show how (perceived) time, economy, learning culture, energy, and purpose are five key factors for this capacity, and we explore the roles these factors play in the manifestation of ageism. These factors cannot be reduced to worker, manager, or learning activity but should be seen as associative, relative, and subjective.

Methods

This article is based on fieldwork conducted in nine governmental workplaces located throughout Denmark during the late summer and autumn of 2022. The fieldwork involved semi-structured interviews (N = 40) followed by participant observations (N = 5). The nine workplaces were selected from a list of potential candidates provided by Kompetencesekretariatet (the Competence Secretariat) that initiated this investigation. We then contacted the management of the workplaces to assess their willingness to participate in the study, and if they were willing to participate, we conducted fieldwork in the workplaces during working hours.

Of the 40 participants, 31 were employees aged 55+, with a mean age of 60.1 years. The remaining nine participants were members of management teams, seven of whom were aged 55+, with a mean age of 57.4 years. In all, 24 participants were female and 16 were male. Of the 40 participants, 17 were employed in public administration, 8 in education, 5 in transportation, 5 in construction, and 5 in the environment and climate sector. The participants’ level of higher, post-compulsory education varied in duration: two had completed 0–1 years of study, 23 had completed 2–4 years of study, and finally, 15 had completed 5+ years of study. Nevertheless, in many cases, the participants had completed multiple shorter educational programs. This was occasionally due to career changes, while, at other times, they had supplemented their education. Consequently, the time invested in education and learning, in many cases, far exceeded traditional ways of measuring study length.

The semi-structured interviews were held at the employees’ workplace during working hours in a confidential setting. A typical interview was between 50 and 80 minutes and covered five topics: 1) experiences with competence development, 2) attitudes toward competence development, 3) need for learning in later working life, 4) learning culture in the workplace, and 5) opportunities and challenges. We asked the participants to draw their professional and personal “competence development journey” through their lives, including their past and imagined future journeys. This facilitated a deeper understanding of how they perceived the significance of competence development from their current standpoint and for their future, and these insights were utilized to unfold understandings of the relationship between age and learning. The structure of the interviews allowed for unexpected pathways, and follow-up questions often led to new insights. All interviews were recorded with consent from the participants, and the data was transcribed verbatim.

A typical participant observation was between 60 and 120 minutes, and we employed a passive level of participation (Spradley, 2016), which involved a combination of stepping back to observe the 55+ employees in their work as well as engaging more actively by asking questions about their practices. Notes were taken during the observation, which were transcribed into a coherent text immediately after. This approach allowed us to observe aspects of their work life beyond verbal communication, providing opportunities for further inquiry and new insights. We did not conduct participant observations while they engaged in learning activities or during the annual personal development review. The latter, though often neglected, is a formal setting where employees discuss personal and vocational development needs and desires with their managers. Instead, we participated in the execution of their work and in interactions with colleagues and managers to gain a better understanding of the 55+ employees’ work practices, workplace dynamics, including tacit knowledge related to executing work and interacting with coworkers, and the relevance of competence development.

Due to the diversity of the 55+ employees in terms of personal narratives, educational backgrounds, job functions, and geographical locations across Denmark, the fieldwork data provided a heterogeneous and nuanced understanding of the different types of skills and competences required in different types of jobs and work contexts. Participants had blue-collar and white-collar jobs. Some had PhDs, and others had no formal education. Some felt worn down and were on their way to retirement at 57; others were anticipating a long career ahead of them at 65 + . This diversity created a multifaceted picture, stressing differences in specific and individual tasks and competence requirements. Despite these differences, all participants worked for the state and therefore shared certain elements, such as general terms and conditions of employment and access to the Competence Fund.

Development of the analytical framework ‘capacity for competence development’

Both interviews and participant observations have undergone an analytical coding process. Throughout the fieldwork period, we conducted data analysis workshops during which we developed and adjusted a code tree for coding in NVivo based on insights and patterns from the investigation. During the workshops, we (re)formulated themes in our code tree to systematize our data, continuously updating it with additional branches as new patterns emerged in our data, while others became less prominent. The data from the project has therefore gone through an analytical induction process (Katz, 2001), where patterns were identified, hypotheses were continually developed for subsequent testing in other interviews and participant observations as well as against the literature. Through this process, we discovered five recurring factors that were important for 55+ employee participation in learning activities: time, economy, learning culture, energy, and purpose.

Based on these insights, and to explore optimal learning practices as well as obstacles to learning in late working life, we developed the analytical framework “capacity for competence development.” In using the term “capacity,” we strive to shift the focus from individual traits, and the idea of intrinsic motivation, to the networks in which 55+ employees operate. This take stresses that motivation for learning is not a fixed trait but part of a capacity that evolves and changes over time. This allows for a more nuanced, comprehensive, and dynamic understanding of engagement in learning for employees aged 55 + . Furthermore, employing the term “capacity” emphasizes the potential for competence development as it implies malleability and highlights the ability to change and adapt with the right conditions and opportunities. This allows for an empowering perspective on 55+ employees and their potential for continued learning. The five factors direct attention to the 55+ employees’ firsthand experiences and perceptions of competence development to overcome preconceived, ageist notions about their motivation, and to unlock potentials for continued learning. Thus, the objective of the analysis is not to imply that employees possess inherent capabilities or can be categorized as “good” or “bad” based on their capacity for competence development. Rather, the framework’s objective is to explore factors that influence 55+ employees’ participation in competence development for future initiatives.

To ensure anonymity, we have refrained from disclosing names, ages, and workplaces. Where we have included quotations, we have translated them from Danish to English and made minor adjustments where necessary to translate idioms appropriately. These quotations are used to exemplify frequently expressed viewpoints or ideas, unless otherwise specified.

Results

In the following, we will describe how time, economy, learning culture, energy, and purpose both support and pose challenges to the capacity for competence development when viewed from the perspective of 55+ employees and their managers, while also symbolizing socially and organizationally constructed ageism, reproduced through ongoing interactions and established norms within the organizations.

Time

Time played a crucial role in shaping the capacity for competence development among the 55+ employees, as perceived shortage of time functioned as a practical obstacle to learning activities. In addition, time left on the labor market and time in the life phase played a role in their prioritization. In the following, we argue that workplace culture and dynamics shape how time is managed and perceived.

Throughout the interviews, the 55+ employees emphasized the scarcity of time that imposes effective time management. In a fast-paced workday with critical duties and time constraints they often regarded time as an obstacle to pursuing both formal and non-formal learning opportunities, including lengthy degree programs as well as shorter seminars and courses. According to the participants, engaging in competence development resulted in an increased workload, as they returned to full desks and inboxes. Therefore, the duration and level of commitment required for learning were crucial factors influencing their participation in such activities. Many 55+ employees thus resorted to informal learning activities, defined as occurring unintentional during the workday (Schulz & Roßnagel, 2010), such as taking on new tasks, reading about new methods online, or listening to colleagues discussing ways of overcoming challenges. Others willingly dedicated their spare time to work-related learning to acquire new knowledge and fulfill their learning needs while being able to maintain operational duties.

Though time constraints can present a barrier to job related learning for adults across age groups, age and seniority especially seemed to affect how time was managed among the 55+ employees. As one participant stated:

I always wanted to do it [participate in a certain learning activity], but after working in the same workplace for many years, the problem is that you prioritize production. The thing about progress [in] production [is], it takes up too much space. (55+ employee)

For this employee, it had been a process of several years finding time for the learning activity in question, though it was relevant to his tasks and responsibilities in the workplace. He perceived his time management as a direct consequence of seniority. In this case, the term “space” can refer to both the unavailability in his calendar and the mental space required for managing production tasks while participating in learning activities. Thus, lack of space posed a barrier to his pursuit of competence development.

Throughout the study, it was evident that the 55+ employees described a growing appreciation for the value of time as working life progressed. Several participants highlighted that their opportunities for learning were limited as they lived in smaller and more secluded areas without proximity to large learning institutions. In contrast to their more flexible youth, they prioritized competence development closer to their homes, which was less time-consuming and required less planning and commuting. Overall, due to their age, 55+ employees became increasingly aware of the importance of effective time management in relation to learning.

Furthermore, managers and 55+ employees alike expected different time management practices from different age groups in the workplace. While older employees were often portrayed as being content with their current career stages, reliable in operations, and possessing a high degree of specialization within their fields, younger colleagues were frequently stereotyped as less attentive to essential tasks due to their focus on career advancement. Though these stereotypes often seemed to be well intended and were expressed with recognition and admiration, they emerged as expressions of positive stereotyping, as older workers are often viewed as experienced, highly committed, and reliable (Previtali & Spedale, 2021; Truxillo et al., 2015). As such, they were expected to prioritize operational duties over learning due to their age, ensuring stable production. Failing to meet these expectations was seen as a loss of face, as they were viewed as embodying certain values and expertise due to their experience and seniority.

Time constraints played a crucial role in shaping the capacity for competence development among the 55+ employees, as many found it challenging to participate due to time pressure, prioritizing routines, and age-related expectations related to time management. These factors limit the capacity for competence development, even when there is a willingness to learn. However, we cannot definitively confirm nor deny the possibility that, for some participants, the notion of time served as a pretense to avoid participating in competence development, as it might have been a way to conceal deeper concerns related to their confidence in learning and their existing competences.

Economy

The 55+ employees perceived the economic resources available in their workplaces for competence development as scarce. Thus, they reflected on the allocation of internal and external competence funds, questioning whether they were worthy of investment. They contemplated actual or imagined priorities influencing the opportunities of participating in learning and the potential return on investment as perceived by their workplace. In other words, economy was loaded with meaning, such as structural or internalized ageism and perceived worthiness.

During the interviews, the allocation of funds for competence development became a symbol of workplace culture and embedded age stereotypes. Multiple participants identified that the age of the employees and the economic circumstances of the organizations were key factors that hindered their engagement in learning activities. One participant emphasized that the allocation of funds followed age stereotypes and was not according to individual interests or incentives. She elaborated:

A: I have applied for money through the Competence Fund, as I’d like to study [a program]. This is where age becomes interesting. If I’d been one of the younger employees, I would have received [internal] funds. I only get funds if I get them from the Competence Fund. I haven’t been told it’s due to age. I’ve been told, “That is how it is. You can get [the program] if you get the money from the Competence Fund.”Q: Do you have an idea why it’s like that?

A: There are only x amount of funds, x amount of resources to allocate. That is a fact. I don’t feel disregarded, as it’s not only me. It’s in general, you see that’s how it is. You know there are rules for younger [employees] and other rules when you get older, tacit rules. It’s how things are, right. That they [employers] invest in the young, because they hope to retain them for many years. (55+ employee)

Age stereotypes, such as the notion that formal education is the domain of the young, challenge older adults and can result in the allocation of resources based on this belief (Egdell et al., 2019; Findsen & Formosa, 2011). Some experienced ageism, as their workplace assumed that they were “too old” to be interested in or motivated for learning, that they were already sufficiently experienced, or that they were likely to retire in the near future and hence deemed unworthy of investment. The managers also recognized age stereotypes as a challenge and emphasized the importance of recognizing 55+ employees as worthy of competence development. Some organizations succeeded in doing so, for instance, by allocating specific funds for each employee while also tailoring the learning activities to their individual needs and preferences. In these instances, standards for the allocation of funds enhanced dialogs about and participation in competence development. Conversely, in other instances, 55+ employees abstained from requesting funds despite a keen interest in learning activities, assuming their requests would not be considered due to a lack of resources. Instead, they self-financed work-related learning activities through unions and subject-specific associations.

The managers recognized the tendency of internalized ageism among their older employees and peers. One manager asserted that self-limiting thinking and behavior is a “distorted and cultural automatic reaction when turning 60.” Several managers also reported having financial surpluses for competence development – partly because their 55+ employees did not require the same amount of funds as their younger colleagues. They could not recall rejecting any proposals from employees who wished to develop competencies. These findings suggest that the notion of limited financial resources may not always have been an actual hindrance to competence development but rather an imagined barrier. Thus, it seems there is a lack of dialogue and awareness of needs and expectations among both managers and 55+ employees.

Economy is a significant factor in the capacity for competence development, as both actual and perceived resources have an impact on 55+ employees’ participation in learning. As such, the capacity for competence development is shaped by the perception of the worthiness of investments due to age stereotypes as well as arrangements around the allocation of funds. In many instances, these arrangements discourage 55+ employees from engaging in learning. To counteract this, a higher level of transparency regarding funds seems part of the solution.

Learning culture

Throughout the study, we discovered that learning culture plays a significant role in shaping 55+ employees’ attitudes toward and engagement in competence development. The term encompasses 55+ employees’ perceptions of the organizational strategy and policies for competence development as well as age stereotypes, subtle everyday events, recognition, implementation after learning activities, and sharing of new knowledge among colleagues.

The participants often made a distinction between strategic and mandatory competence development, and individually targeted competence development. All organizations provided strategic and mandatory competence development to their employees. Such activities included safety courses, digital courses, mentorships (including intergenerational ones), seminars, and more, which were often tailored to specific job functions. This often made it challenging to apply acquired competences to other roles or to individualize learning trajectories, and, moreover, they did not offer opportunities for further advancement. While some 55+ employees found these courses satisfactory and valuable, others expressed dissatisfaction with the learning activities provided, as they perceived them as indicative of a one-size-fits-all learning culture within the organization that did not match their individual learning needs or preferences. This often led to a general reluctance to engage in learning activities.

Furthermore, it was widely perceived that there was an overemphasis on formal modes of learning as the primary means of competence development, such as the aforementioned mandatory courses. This limited perception, combined with a lack of sufficient dialogue about individual learning needs, restricted exploration of non-formal and informal modes of learning for the individually targeted competence development. An employee explained:

A: I believe it would be good if my manager, for example, could tell me what [competences] she thinks I lack. It would provide me with insights into blind spots, guidance on the direction we are heading, and whether I’m missing something I need. That would be awesome. Because I don’t believe in having complete freedom to choose anything and everything – not everything is relevant to me. I can find a niche because I’d like to learn [Italian], as I cooperate with many [Italian speakers]. I actually applied for that many years ago. … I would really have liked that, but I didn’t get it. It really didn’t go through. It was a shame … because it could have been such a useful tool.

Q: What were the arguments against it?

A: “We don’t do that here.” I don’t think they’d ever heard that question before, so they were entirely startled. (55+ employee)

A contradiction existed in the fact that the employee was informed that there was freedom of choice, but, simultaneously, there were tacit rules about what qualified as relevant learning. Multiple participants called for creating a more risk-willing and tailored learning culture that not only focused on the organizations’ immediate competence needs but also provided a better structure for individually targeted competence development.

Age stereotypes also become an integral part of the organizations’ learning cultures. It was a widespread belief among the participants that 55+ employees were already highly specialized, emphasizing the notion that they had little left to learn. Consequently, to avoid potential loss of face, participants refrained from engaging in learning situations that could expose their lack of knowledge within their areas of expertise. An employee described experiencing insecurities when being among the last of her colleagues to finish a final test, leading her to question her own abilities and subsequently avoid such situations. Another participant only asked questions in learning situations about topics where she was completely certain that she need not know the answer due to fear of losing face in front of her coworkers. According to the 55+ employees, age stereotypes played a significant role in this dynamic, as they conformed to certain expectations, such as the assumption that they possessed the most experience and expertise due to their “graying hair.” By avoiding learning situations, they also avoided potential loss of face and maintained a sense of competence in their respective roles.

Overall, the 55+ employees advocated for a learning culture that recognized and utilized their experience and expertise as a valuable organizational resource. This was crucial for their belief in a future within the organization, as they expressed concerns about being perceived as irrelevant or inadequate by colleagues and managers, a phenomenon known as “worn-out syndrome” (Aabo et al., 2023). Therefore, it was essential that colleagues and managers acknowledged their contributions and potential. In this light, an employee emphasized how recognition could enhance 55+ employees’ participation in learning activities:

The more you feel [your competences are] utilized, the more you feel like an asset, the more you want to do about it. You get a pat on the shoulder; you straighten up an extra time. Okay, they can use me. They want me to pursue this direction, maybe there is some sort [of learning activity] I could participate in to improve my competences. (55+ employee)

Recognition and belief that it was worth it for 55+ employees to learn, thereby emphasizing their relevance, seemed to be able to move them from a passive to an active attitude toward competence development. Conversely, feeling disregarded strengthened their assumption of irrelevance and became a self-fulfilling prophecy of decreased engagement in such activities.

Another challenge for learning culture was a lack of support in sharing knowledge and implementing newly acquired skills in the 55+ employees’ work. They highlighted the general misconception that competence development is a one-time event rather than an ongoing process that requires support from the workplace. These employees found it problematic to invest resources in learning activities that ultimately resulted in knowledge and skills going to waste. This negatively affected their motivation to participate in learning activities and hindered the organization’s ability to foster a culture of continuous learning. However, they did perceive being asked to share their knowledge as a way of feeling valued and acknowledged for their experience, thereby increasing their willingness to engage in competence development.

Learning culture highly influences 55+ employees’ capacity for competence development. A culture that encourages dialogue about preferred learning methods, follow-up plans, recognition of existing competences and potential, as well as flexibility in addressing individual learning needs is likely to enhance 55+ employees’ engagement in learning activities.

Energy

The 55+ employees often emphasized that having sufficient energy and being able to dedicate it to competence development were crucial factors for their participation. In this context, energy refers to the mental and physical faculty required to balance work-related tasks, competence development, personal conditions, and other duties. Additionally, some explained that their lack of engagement in learning was a result of feeling drained or fatigued from demands.

The participants referred to competence development as both potentially draining and potentially energizing, depending on the relevance and quality of the specific learning activity and on their overall work and life situation. In cases where it was perceived as a source of energy, they not only felt energized during the learning process but also when improving the quality of their work and sharing their insights with peers and target audiences. In cases where competence development was perceived as draining, this was often in concurrence with a notion of an intensified and accelerating labor market. These 55+ employees experienced a decrease in energy levels due to increased workloads, further reinforced by additional responsibilities that often accompany age and experience in operations. This drain of energy was especially due to organizational changes, such as increased digitalization, which demanded an increasing number of strategic and mandatory courses related to IT and data safety. These changes, additionally, required them to adapt their work practices accordingly. Over the years, these experiences had accumulated and ultimately led to deep frustration.

The feeling of being overburdened by frequent changes has been described as “change fatigue” (Bernerth et al., 2011). Organizational changes often required competence development in several aspects, such as becoming familiar with new assignments and work processes, as well as finding new roles within departments and learning how to collaboratively solve challenges with new coworkers. The 55+ employees experiencing change fatigue felt overwhelmed by the amount of strategic and mandatory competence development required in their work due to these frequent organizational changes. They particularly expressed change fatigue when changes did not align with their professional opinion on best practices, as they simultaneously experienced a loss of meaning in their work. Consequently, they expressed a general enervation from learning due to already feeling drained from the competence development required. Many expressed difficulties accommodating mentally to these frequent changes, and as such, duty had become the main reason for continuously participating in learning. An employee explained:

Too many changes demotivate me. There have been some years where we’ve felt that we have reorganized or changed everything for the sake of changing everything. We’ve never settled before we have changed everything again. … I don’t have the vigor for [individual] competence development as well. Enough is already going on. I’m mentally full, in my head. We can’t process everything. Especially not when you get older. (55+ employee)

The 55+ employees often articulated a “mental max capacity” for learning, which they associated with reduced energy levels as they grew older. Thus, it was crucial to achieve a balance between strategic and mandatory competence development, which was often associated with energy drain, and individually targeted competence development, which was often associated with an increase of energy, as one could exclude the other. Reluctance in competence development could thus be mistaken as change resistance, a common stereotype about older employees, when in fact it could be an expression of change fatigue.

As employees have multiple roles in their lives, strong demands in one of these roles, such as family matters, may also affect their energy levels and performance (Van Solinge et al., 2023). Alongside managing their energy at work, the 55+ employees often had to cope with new roles in their personal lives, such as becoming a grandparent, and some experienced various crises, such as the illness or death of a close family member. These circumstances required energy management not only at work but also in their personal lives and in coordinating the two. The decision to participate in competence development required careful consideration, and, as such, some expressed lack of energy to prioritize competence development.

While some 55+ employees expressed lack of energy for learning, they also emphasized the significance of engaging in non-formal learning activities that were meaningful to them, such as mentorships, study trips, shorter courses, and networking events. Thus, the notion of energy is closely related to the kinds of learning activities 55+ employees participate in. Often, informal and non-formal training seem to energize, whereas mandatory and/or formal training tends to drain when employees do not perceive the overall purpose of the learning activity.

The exploration of energy reveals how the interplay between organizational changes, the different forms of competence development, and work-life balance influence the capacity for competence development. As work demands evolve and organizational change accelerates, an increasing number of mandatory courses may be required, leading to a feeling of change fatigue despite a continuing interest in learning. As such, the capacity is closely related to the particularities of the current labor market and its pace, rather than being individual characteristics of a 55+ employee or a manager. In this regard, it is crucial to avoid labeling older employees as resistant to change due to their age and instead investigate how work and learning practices influence their energy levels and management.

Purpose

Due to age and experience, the 55+ employees expressed greater demands with respect to learning and a need to identify whether the resources invested in competence development were worthwhile. A long working life with countless (and often redundant) courses had increased their demand for quality and relevance. When the purpose appeared relevant and transparent, the participants were more likely to engage in competence development.

The 55+ employees required alignment between the learning activities and their daily work practices, work-life plans, and desired levels of responsibility. They argued that competence development should involve tangible, practice-oriented learning activities that provide specific tools or skills that could apply directly to their work, without resulting in an undesirable increase in their level of responsibility, for instance by becoming a manager or adding extra assignments to their workload. These activities could consist of various aspects, such as learning a new software program, participating in a conference to network with peers, going on a study trip to learn from practice elsewhere, or mentoring younger and less experienced colleagues. A 55+ employee had recently found a learning activity in which she was taught specific conversation tools related to her work useful, in contrast to irrelevant learning activities she had participated in previously:

That [the tool] actually makes sense to me, because it’s useful. You can build on that. The other [types of competence development] is old wine in a new bottle. I know that a lot of us say, “Not again. Can’t we spend time more wisely?” … In that regard, I believe we change with age. (55+ employee)

The participants often contrasted purposeful learning experiences to generic and meaningless ones, where the goals and outcomes of the activities were unclear and sometimes repetitive, or “old wine in new bottles.” This attitude, however, was a result of previous experiences with competence development, which led to a reluctance to engage in learning in the future. They often contrasted this attitude with their younger and less experienced selves, recalling a greater willingness to take risks and try courses without guarantees regarding the outcome. Likewise, the 55+ employees often talked about competence development in normative terms as something irrelevant at their career stage until they mentioned specific learning outcomes and tools that could apply directly to their work. This suggested that while some participants felt fatigued by traditional learning activities, they were still eager to acquire new skills and knowledge.

Furthermore, some participants introspectively questioned the larger purpose of competence development, especially if they had already achieved their career objectives, their desired salary, and were satisfied with their work life. While many participants argued that their age and experience had raised their expectations and demands regarding learning, they also argued that their passive attitude toward competence development was self-imposed. However, this perspective did not capture the complete picture. For many participants, engagement was driven less by financial or material benefits and more by appreciation of their efforts and recognition of their potential. Additionally, their engagement in competence development increased when they perceived the relevance of the learning content and how it was related to their work practices, plans for the future, and level of responsibility.

The purpose of activities seems to shift and to increase in importance in later work life. Accordingly, it may be possible to encourage a more active attitude toward competence development by providing practical and relevant learning opportunities that cater to the individual 55+ employee’s specific needs and preferences. As such, the capacity for competence development is formed by whether learning is strategically planned and articulated as purposeful and important. Ensuring that the purpose of learning activities aligns with these aspects and providing clarity could enhance the capacity for competence development.

Discussion

When analyzing our data, we found two dichotomies shaping the field, which we hope to dissolve with the capacity for competence development framework. First, we found a dichotomizing belief that nonparticipation is caused either by the demotivation of 55+ employees or by managers’ disinterest in investing in these employees. The capacity for competence development framework shows that this dichotomy overlooks the cultural and ambiguous negotiations and dynamics of reaching out for, applying for, being encouraged to, and participating in learning activities. Simply put, manager and employee proneness to engage 55+ employees in learning activities is formed by the cultural dynamics of the workplace and general societal ideas about aging and decline. With these five factors, we have attempted to analyze these dynamics and create a framework for addressing them.

Second, managers tend to describe 55+ employees in two distinct ways, thereby creating a dichotomy that risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. On one hand, they portray the majority of 55+ employees as content with their current work life, terrific at doing their job, and therefore not actively seeking competence development. On the other hand, they highlight and salute a smaller group of 55+ employees who remain curious and proactive in their pursuit of competence development. What we have seen in our data, and what we emphasize with our framework, is that most 55+ employees tend to not be either satisfied or curious. Rather, they fall into a third category, where they are pending and awaiting.

The pending and awaiting are not dismissive of further competence development. Instead, they need to perceive a clear purpose, ensuring that it aligns with the overall strategy of the workplace or their individual career plans. Additionally, they need to be acknowledged as important parts of the workplace and therefore worth investing in, and they need to be assured that participating will not increase their workload substantially. Thus, rather than creating a dichotomy between the employee and manager that reduces the question of competence development to the responsibility of one party or the other, we assert that the capacity can be enhanced through constructive dialogue, the clarification of needs, and recognition of the individual 55+ employee.

In certain cases, managers suggested that it is a considerable challenge for experienced employees to acquire new knowledge; due to their high level of specialization, their knowledge often exceeds that of their teachers in educational settings. However, this age stereotype, while well-intentioned, may inadvertently constitute a barrier, as it presumes a limited capacity for the acquisition of new knowledge, thus potentially leaving older employees in a state of educational stagnation. Moreover, this stance reproduces an idea of learning with a clear distinction between teacher and student. Other researchers have shown that learning is a collective process (e.g., Hufford, 1991; Kagan, 1994), and that older adults need to be included as co-producers of the knowledge generated in the classroom or in other, more informal learning settings, due to their experience (Findsen & Formosa, 2011).

While we argue that participation in learning among 55+ employees could be enhanced through an increased focus on the five factors, with working life potentially extended further for this group, we also stress that some of the participants resisted further training. They were not necessarily dissatisfied with their job but contended that some employees needed to keep the wheels in motion and produce while others focused on the development of the workplace. Often, these employees distinguished between daily operations and competence development and perceived themselves mainly as part of the former. Such employees declared that forcing them to participate would cause them to retire earlier than if they were left to do their job.

Following this logic, it is important to stress that although the literature suggests a link between the extension of working life and lifelong learning, this link is not causal. Forcing 55+ employees to participate in lifelong learning will not maintain them in the workforce. Rather, the link seems to be associative. 55+ employees who are prone to participate in lifelong learning are likely to continue working into old age. That said, in the capacity for competence development framework, (non)participation is not static. Rather, it is shaped by the cultural dynamics of the workplace and by attachments between managers, employees, policies, unions, competence funds, regulations, workplace strategies, and support systems.

Policy implications

We believe that the framework “capacity for competence development” can provide a valuable workplace dialogue for practitioners, and more generally valuable knowledge regarding the complex dynamics of learning in later working life. As we have demonstrated, initiatives within the labor market regarding competence development often fail to consider age stereotypes and biases. This means that even when requirements and opportunities appear equal for all employees on paper, not everyone have equal access to competence development in the labor market. Thus, social policies should support older employees’ participation in work-related learning through inclusive initiatives.

We believe an increased focus on the following initiatives can support more informed policy decision-making and unlock older employees’ competence development: 1) Increasing focus on systematic, active, and dialogue-based approaches to competence development during personal development reviews with 55+ employees. This includes facilitating frequent dialogs with defined roles and responsibilities regarding competence development about where the workplace is heading, the competences required, and the manager’s and 55+ employee’s belief in investing resources in competence development later in working life. 2) Broadening the notion of competence development. This involves engaging in dialogs about how each 55+ employee learns best and increasing focus on customized and flexible learning formats for individually targeted competence development, such as networking groups, mentorship programs, or study trips. While experience can influence the perception of what is relevant, it remains crucial to acknowledge that there are relevant areas for development. 3) Knowledge transfer during and after learning activities. Workplaces should consider how to better follow up and implement new knowledge during and after competence development, including establishing partners for discussions and organizing presentations for the 55+ employees to share knowledge. 4) Creating inclusive workplace strategies to combat ageism. This involves recognizing the existing competences and significance of 55+ employees, as well as their potential for competence development. This also includes educating employers on competence development as a means to retain older employees. Furthermore, it entails recognizing that 55+ employees may be concerned about sharing insecurities and challenges with an employer later in work life due to ageism and, therefore, supporting them in their goals. 5) Providing incentives and opportunities in the labor market that encourages learning across age groups. This could entail earmarking funds targeted at older employees and investing in educational initiatives and programs designed for older employees to enhance their employability.

Limitations

Due to the qualitative nature of this study, we cannot make definitive claims about the extent of competence development among 55+ employees. In this type of study, however, the aim is not representativeness. Rather, with curiosity and reflexivity, it is to unfold and illuminate the multifaceted aspects of competence development in later working life among a limited number of participants in a given context.

We have not provided an analysis of intersectionality factors such as gender, race, and socio-economic status, as the participants did not raise these factors during the interviews. Hence, based on our qualitative methods, we do not make any claims about the importance of such factors, nor do we claim that the five factors for the capacity for competence development matter equally for all participants and their workplaces. Instead, our study focuses on the importance of age and experience when considering and negotiating competence development.

Throughout the study, we thoroughly considered ethical and methodological aspects. As management was responsible for selecting 55+ employees for this investigation, it is important to acknowledge the possibility of management bias in the selection process. Nevertheless, we did not observe any reluctance from employees to express criticism toward their respective management, and we have no reason to suspect that the managers had any particular agenda in the selection of employees.

Conclusion

Our aim in introducing the framework “capacity for competence development” is twofold: First, we have provided a scaffold for understanding the factors that promote or hinder participation in learning activities in later working life. Second, we have challenged ageist assumptions that declining motivation and unwillingness to engage in vocational learning are inevitable outcomes of aging or approaching retirement. Instead, we have argued that this capacity is shaped by a complex interplay between relational and cultural dynamics in the workplace and that capacity for competence development cannot be reduced to the individual employee, employer, or workplace. Instead, (non)participation is reproduced in the workplace environments and must be examined within the broader cultural contexts that inform and shape policies, resource management, stereotypes and learning practices.

Key points

• Formal equality does not ensure equal access to learning at work across age groups

• The analysis contests age stereotypes regarding older workers’ learning motivation

• Focus shifts from motivation as an inherent trait to cultural factors shaping it

• Older workers often want to develop competences but await the right circumstances

• The analysis cPolicies informed by the framework can unlock older workers’ competence development contests age stereotypes regarding older workers’ learning motivation

Institutional review board

The study has received ethical approval from the Faculty of Humanities’ ethics committee at the University of Copenhagen. Journal number: 514–0129/22–4000

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT and Grammarly to improve readability and language. Throughout the process of using these tools, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Informants have given informed consent, and signed consent forms. Data has been stored securely. Though data has been anonymized, personal narratives can be recognizable, making full anonymization practically impossible. Therefore, data cannot be shared publicly as we are unable to sufficiently anonymize it for public access.

Additional information

Funding

The project is funded by Kompetencesekretariatet, and the project arises from collective agreements. Throughout the research period, we shared our insights with the grantor, but they have had no influence on the project’s results.