LAUSR

Successful aging, in and outside of work, is an area worthy of research attention. To this end, Kooij et al. (2020) provide a process model of successful aging at work, detailing proactive and adaptive self-regulatory behaviors that support individuals’ ability and motivation to continue working. We agree with many of their contentions, but some areas of the model require further consideration. Such considerations all fall within one broader concern: that Kooij et al.’s (2020) model (and all models of “successful aging,” to a degree) are overly agentic, overemphasizing the degree to which people possess the intrinsic capacity for control. Structural constraints and limitations directly influence appraisals, experiences, and self-regulatory processes, and individuals cannot “regulate away” or “through” all of these indefinitely and universally. In its current form, however, the model does not provide a direct pathway between the constraining forces of age-related discrimination and bias on the one hand and fit perceptions and self-regulation processes on the other hand. Such constraints and limitations are the primary focus of our commentary. We recognize, of course, that including all possible constraints and opportunities in a single model is both unrealistic and unwieldy (and that Kooij and colleagues’ model was focused on enabling or triggering factors for self-regulation). However, we would be unduly optimistic, and ruggedly individualistic, as a field to emphasize facilitating factors and not provide equal discussion of hindrances and challenges to successful aging. Without an understanding of what prevents or poses issues for aging successfully at work, we cannot get a full “picture” of aging, and of how to define “success” inclusively, for the diverse workforce. Kooij et al.’s (2020) call for future research to “take into account that an intervention carried out at one level might have implications at other levels” and consider “that age-related bias and discrimination at different levels may hinder the enabling factors at the corresponding level and constrain their beneficial effects” (p. 345), sentiments that we echo and believe prompt elaboration in three core areas. Specifically, we contend that limiting and constraining factors manifest across the macro, meso, and micro levels of Kooij et al.’s model, and that these factors impact individuals’ fit appraisals and self-regulatory processes. We discuss each of these areas by their level of origin, next (i.e., with the understanding that all of these factors have “cross-level” influences, e.g., systemic influences on individual fit perceptions). It is worth noting at the outset that a disconnect between macro and meso factors and successful aging has long been suggested in the lifespan development literature (e.g., Baltes’s 1997