Intergenerational Interaction and the Benefits of Ageing Employees in a Nursing Home

  • Kristiina Niemi-Kaija


This chapter explores how ageing employees contribute to intergenerational interaction in an organization from the organizational aesthetics perspective. The data is obtained using interviews with professionals who work at a municipal nursing home designed for older people. Qualitative analysis methods were based on the aesthetic categories of ugliness and grace. As a result, I present a positive example of how ageing employees’ sensitivity and ability to create powerful stories supported the whole work community’s interaction and courage to act.


Ageing Intergenerational interaction Aesthetics 



This research was supported by the Finnish Work Environment Fund. I also would like to thank Iiris Aaltio who offered insight and made valuable contribution to this paper.


  1. Aaltio, I. (2009). How to become a knowledge holder: Creating a piece of scientific knowledge with originality. Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 7(3), 9–25.Google Scholar
  2. Aaltio, I., Salminen, H., & Koponen, S. (2014). Ageing employees and human resource management evidence of gender-sensitivity? Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 33(2), 160–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews, M. (1999). The seductiveness of agelessness. Ageing and Society, 19(4), 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, F. J. (1998). Creativity and improvisation in Jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational learning. Organization Science, 9(5), 605–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett, F. J. (2012). Yes to the mess. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  6. Barthes, R. (2012). How to live together. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bathurst, R., Jackson, B., & Statler, M. (2010). Leading aesthetically in uncertain times. Leadership, 6(3), 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benson, J., & Brown, M. (2011). Generations at work: Are there differences and do they matter? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(9), 1843–1865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1994). Todellisuuden sosiaalinen rakentuminen. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.Google Scholar
  10. Berleant, A. (1973). The verbal presence: An aesthetics of literary performance. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 31(3), 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boje, D. (1991). The storytelling of organization: A study of story performance in an office- supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 106–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowie, A. (1990). Aesthetic and subjectivity from Kant to Nietzsche. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carr, A., & Hancock, P. (2003). Work as an aesthetically ordered activity: Introduction. In A. Carr & P. Hancock (Eds.), Art and aesthetics at work. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Courtney, R. (1995). Drama and feeling: An aesthetic theory. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s UP.Google Scholar
  15. Durepos, G., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. G. (2012). Theorizing the past: Realism, relativism, relationalism and the reassembly of Weber. Management & Organizational History, 7(3), 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fineman, S. (2014). Age matters. Organization Studies, 35(11), 1719–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gabriel, Y. (1995). The unmanaged organization: Stories, fantasies, subjectivity. Organization Studies, 6(3), 477–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gabriel, Y. (2015). Storytelling. Retrieved from http://integrafs1/kcg/2-Pagination/TandF/RHIP_RAPS/ApplicationFiles/9780415657143_text.3d.Google Scholar
  19. Gagliardi, P. (1996). Exploring the aesthetic side of organizational life. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Gagliardi, P. (1999). Theories empowering for action. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(2), 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guillet de Monthoux, P., & Sjöstrand, S. (2003). Corporate art or artful corporation? The emerging philosophy firm. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sévon-Berg (Eds.), Nordic light; organization theory in Scandinavia. Malmö: Liber.Google Scholar
  22. Halme, P., & Aaltio, I. (2011). Ikääntymisen merkitys työelämässä: Näkökulmia ikäjohtamisen tutkimukseen. Hallinnon tutkimus, 30(3), 221–236.Google Scholar
  23. Hancock, P. (2005). Uncovering the semiotic in organizational aesthetics. Organization, 12(1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansen, H., Ropo, A., & Sauer, E. (2007). Aesthetic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 544–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harding, N. (2002). On the manager’s body as an aesthetics of control. Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 2(1), 63–76.Google Scholar
  26. Hatch, M.J. (1999). The jazz metaphor for organizing: Historical and performative aspects. Paper to be presented to the critical management studies conference popular culture and critical management stream, Manchester.Google Scholar
  27. Ilmarinen, J. (2009). Ikääntyminen ja työmarkkinat. In M. Vaarama (Ed.), Ikääntyminen riskinä ja mahdollisuutena, Poliittisen kestävyyden alaryhmän raportti, Valtioneuvoston kanslian raportteja 3/2009.Google Scholar
  28. Kociatkiewicz, J., & Kostera, M. (2015). Into the labyrinth: Tales of organizational nomadism. Organization Studies, 36(1), 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koivunen, N. (2007). Kohti kuuntelevaa johtajuuskulttuuria: johtajuustutkimuksen ja estetiikan yhtymäkohtia. Hallinnon tutkimus, 26(2), 33–46.Google Scholar
  30. Koivunen, N. (2009). Collective expertise: Ways of organizing expert work in collective settings. Journal of Management & Organization, 15(02), 258–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuepers, W. (2011). “Trans+-form”: Leader and followership as an embodied, emotional and aesthetic practice for creative transformation in organisations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(1), 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Küpers, W., Mantere, S., & Statler, M. (2013). Strategy as storytelling: A phenomenological collaboration. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(1), 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ladkin, D. (2013). From perception to flesh: A phenomenological account of the felt experience of leadership. Leadership, 9(3), 320–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laine, T. (2001). Miten kokemusta voidaan tutkia? Fenomenologinen näkökulma. In J. Aaltola & R. Valli (Eds.), Ikkunoita tutkimusmetodeihin II. Jyväskylä: PS kustannus.Google Scholar
  35. Linstead, S., Maréchal, G., & Griffin, R. W. (2014). Theorizing and researching the dark side of organization. Organization Studies, 35(2), 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Määttä, S. (2015). Sanan expérience suomentamisesta – Klinikan synty käännöskokemuksena. Niin & Näin, 3, 12–15.Google Scholar
  37. March, J. G. (1991). How decisions happen in organization. Human Computer Interaction, 6, 95–117. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marotto, M., Roos, J., & Victor, B. (2007). Collective virtuosity in organizations: A study of peak performance in an orchestra. Journal of Management Studies, 44(3), 388–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (2003). Introduction: Toward a practice-based view of knowing and learning in organization. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations, a practice-based approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Niemi-Kaija, K. (2014). Kokemuksellisuus työelämässä organisaatioestetiikan viitekehyksessä. Työntekijöiden subjektiiviset konstruktiot tehokkuudesta. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  41. Niemi-Kaija, K., & Aaltio, I. (2016). Tehokkuuden subjektiivinen konstruointi julkishallinnon työntekijöiden puheessa – organisaatioestetiikka viitekehyksenä. Hallinnon tutkimus lehti, 35(2), 131–145.Google Scholar
  42. Niemistö, C., Hearn, J., & Jyrkinen, M. (2016). Age and generations in everyday organisational life: Neglected intersections in studying organisations. International Journal of Work Innovation, 1(4), 353–374.Google Scholar
  43. Pritchard, K., & Whiting, R. (2014). Baby boomers and the lost generation: On the discursive construction of generations at work. Organization Studies, 35(11), 1605–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rhodes, C., Pullen, A., & Clegg, S. R. (2010). ‘If I should fall from grace …’: Stories of change and organizational ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(4), 535–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Robyn, T., Hardy, C., Cutcher, L., & Ainsworth, S. (2014). What’s age got to do with it? On the critical analysis of age and organizations. Organization Studies, 35(1), 1569–1584.Google Scholar
  46. Rooney, D., & McKenna, B. (2008). Wisdom in public administration: Looking for a sociology of wise practice. Public Administration Review, 68(4), 709–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ropo, A., & Parviainen, J. (2001). Leadership and knowledge in expert organizations: Epistemological rethinking. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 17(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ruoholinna, T. (2009). Ikääntyvät työelämässä. Päihittääkö nuoruus ja koulutus aikuisuuden ja kokemuksen. Turku: Turun yliopisto.Google Scholar
  49. Saito, Y. (2007). Everyday aesthetics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sandelands, L. E., & Boudens, C. J. (2000). Feeling at work. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotions in organization. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Sauer, E. (2005). Emotions in leadership. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Springborg, C. (2010). Leadership as art – Leaders coming to their senses. Leadership, 6(3), 116–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strati, A. (1999). Organization and aesthetics. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Strati, A. (2000). The aesthetic approach in organization studies. In S. A. Linstead & H. Höpfl (Eds.), Aesthetics in organization. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Strati, A. (2003). Knowing in practice: Aesthetic understanding and tacit knowledge. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations, a practice-based approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Tatarkiewicz, W. (1974). History of aesthetics III. Modern aesthetics. Warszawa: Pwn-Polish Scientific Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tatarkiewicz, W. (1980). Moral perfection. Dialectics and Humanism, 3, 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Taylor, S. S. (2002). Overcoming aesthetic muteness. Researching organizational members’ aesthetic experience. Human Relations, 55(7), 821–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taylor, S. S., & Hansen, N. (2005). Finding form: Looking at the field of organizational aesthetics. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1211–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Taylor, S., Fisher, D., & Dufresne, R. (2002). The aesthetic of management storytelling. Management Learning, 33(3), 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vince, R., & Warren, S. (2012). Participatory visual methods. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative organizational research: Core methods and current challenges. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Virtanen, J. (2006). Fenomenologia laadullisen tutkimuksen lähtökohtana. In J. Metsämuuronen (Ed.), Laadullisen tutkimuksen käsikirja. Jyväskylä: Gummerus kirjapaino.Google Scholar
  63. Vuorinen, J. (1990). Baumgartenin Estetiikka. In A. Haapala (Ed.), Taiteen kritiikki. Juva: Wsoy.Google Scholar
  64. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Woodward, J. B., & Funk, C. (2010). Developing the artist-leader. Leadership, 6(3), 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristiina Niemi-Kaija
    • 1
  1. 1.University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations