A study of inclusive supervisory behaviors, workplace social inclusion and turnover intention in the context of employee age Open Access

The Australian retail industry is one of the largest employers in the country, providing 9% of the overall jobs, with 33% of its employees aged between 15 and 24 (National Careers Institute, 2023). The industry is suffering from high turnover and worker shortages (Linchpin, 2021). In addition to older employees being more loyal and less likely to turnover (Ali and French, 2019; Ng and Feldman, 2010), they can provide unique insights into the preferences of the aged customer segment and improve customer satisfaction (Emsley, 2020). However, discrimination based on age or ageism, while officially prohibited, still exists (Drazic and Schermuly, 2023). Although the term “aged” is usually used for people above the age of 60, in the labor market, people aged 45 or above are considered mature-aged. Given the changes in the workforce, it is important to understand that the younger segment (under the age of 45) is shrinking. Thus, mature-aged workers are key to economic productivity (Dunsby, 2021).

Past studies on employee age focused mostly on stereotypes and discrimination (e.g. Cebola et al., 2021; Lyons and Kuron, 2014), organizational age-related human resource practices (e.g. Ali and French, 2019) and outcomes of age diversity for organizations (e.g. Ali et al., 2014; Kooij et al., 2010) and individuals (e.g. Hamouche and Parent-Lamarche, 2023; Matagi et al., 2022; Rabl and del Carmen Triana, 2014). Specifically, in the context of the retail industry, only a few studies focused on older employees. For example, James et al. (2011) reported that older employees demonstrate higher workplace engagement compared to younger employees. Johnson et al. (2013) argued older employees have advantages in the retail industry, as they experience less customer-related stress and subsequent burnout. Schröder et al.’s (2014) qualitative findings indicate retail organizational in the UK and Germany are realizing the benefits of older employees and thus are hiring candidates from these age groups.

Inclusion is an essential component that enables employees to fully participate in the work process and harness the advantages of workforce diversity (Dhanani et al., 2024; Mor Barak, 2015; Shore et al., 2018). It is particularly important for employee groups that face a high risk of negative experiences at the workplace, such as older employees, who may feel less safe and less respected by their younger co-workers (Teo et al., 2022). Emphasizing inclusion, we aim to shed light on inclusive supervisory behaviors, workplace social inclusion and turnover intention in the context of employee age. To achieve this, we conducted a quantitative study that focuses on understanding the employee perspective on inclusion and its consequences. Specifically, we integrate socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1992, 1998) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to study how inclusive supervisory behaviors lead to workplace social inclusion, which results in decreased turnover intentions in the context of age diversity (see Figure 1).

In Australia, the Age Discrimination Act 2004, in conjunction with the Fair Work Act 2009, plays a critical role in prohibiting age discrimination in employment, promoting equal opportunities and ensuring equitable treatment across all age groups by establishing comprehensive employment terms and delineating the rights and responsibilities of employees and employers (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2024). The International Labor Organization (ILO) emphasizes the importance of strategies to engage the often underappreciated and underutilized aged labor force (ILO, 2011). Similarly, UN SDG 10 includes measures to eliminate age discrimination and foster the social, economic and political inclusion of individuals, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic status (United Nations, 2024). Despite these efforts, the Australian retail sector continues to face looming labor and skill shortages due to an aging population, highlighting that providing greater opportunities for mature-aged workers is not just a prudent choice but a necessity to address future workforce challenges (National Retail Association, 2022).

Given the limited research on mature-aged employees within the retail industry, we explored how retail organizations in Australia manage age diversity. Recognizing the significance of inclusion for vulnerable employee groups, particularly older workers, we also sought to understand the specific inclusion initiatives implemented by these organizations. Additionally, to provide a comprehensive perspective, we analyzed how employees perceive and experience these diversity and inclusion efforts. We identified 51 retail organizations listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, as these organizations have publicly available organizational documents. The list was reduced to the ten largest organizations with accessible documents and employee reviews. To avoid any bias, four were randomly selected for analysis. Each belonged to one of the following sub-industries: department stores (5,461 employees), footwear retailing (5,174 employees), non-store retailing (1,391 employees) and furniture retailing (499 employees). Their publicly disclosed documents (value statements, corporate governance reports and diversity policies) were thoroughly analyzed. Additionally, we analyzed their 39 employee reviews from Glassdoor (January–July 2021) that discussed themes related to diversity, inclusion, engagement and turnover.

The findings indicate that organizations focus heavily on diversity, mentioning it 121 times across various documents. Their intent might be to promote diversity and encourage the development of a diverse workforce. While gender diversity was emphasized, the importance of age diversity was scarcely highlighted. Age was often cited as one of several forms of diversity, along with gender, disability, race, culture and nationality. In the documents from the four organizations, “age” was mentioned only 12 times, and there was a notable absence of specific policies addressing attraction, appointment and retention of an age-diverse workforce. Although organizations placed a strong emphasis on diversity, employees rarely mentioned it in their reviews, with some even pointing out a lack of age diversity, describing the workforce as predominantly young and vibrant.

Inclusion emerged as the second most significant term noted in the organizational documents, mentioned 70 times across the three documents. Organizations portrayed themselves as inclusive employers committed to fostering and maintaining an inclusive workplace. While inclusion was the second most frequently mentioned area in organizational documents, employees valued it the most, often describing their work environment as supportive and friendly. Despite this, there were also negative remarks, with some employees criticizing the leadership for being biased and the work environment being siloed. Organizational culture and work environment were mentioned 32 times, with policies and procedures reflecting a commitment to creating an inclusive and diverse workplace. However, employee feedback was mixed, with some expressing frustration over poor organizational culture and others praising the environment. Employee engagement, turnover and retention were mentioned less frequently in organizational documents, primarily in the context of attracting and retaining talent with unique skill sets, work styles and experiences. However, some employees expressed dissatisfaction with their workplace.

In sum, although organizations primarily emphasized their diversity and inclusion policies, employees expressed concern about the overall culture, workplace environment, engagement levels and turnover rates. This discrepancy highlights the need for further examination and understanding of employee perceptions for various age groups.

The management literature is increasingly emphasizing workplace inclusion (Mor-Barak and Cherin, 1998; Roberson, 2006). In the workplace, inclusion reflects the fundamental belief that all employees should be accepted and valued (Ely and Thomas, 2001; Ryan and Kossek, 2008; Shore et al., 2011). Inclusion can be defined as employees’ perceptions of being accepted and included in the workplace and feeling a part of critical organizational processes and decision-making (Frederickson and Cline, 2002; Mor Barak et al., 1998; Tang et al., 2015).

Direct supervisors, serving as organizational agents, wield influence over employee experiences within workgroups by allocating rewards and opportunities and, therefore, have a significant impact on employees’ experiences of inclusion (Shore et al., 2011). Hence, to understand the role of inclusion within organizations, a key research focus has been on inclusive leadership, particularly the inclusiveness demonstrated by immediate supervisors or managers (Shore et al., 2011). Wasserman et al. (2008) emphasize that a supervisor’s words and actions significantly impact subordinates' sense of perceived inclusion. Shore et al. (2011) posit that inclusive leadership may contribute to employees’ perceived inclusion. Inclusive leadership, as defined by Nembhard and Edmondson (2006), involves a leader’s actions and words reflecting an “invitation and appreciation of others’ contributions” (p. 947). Their research indicates that inclusive leadership positively influences psychological safety and, consequently, employees' engagement in quality improvement work. Inclusive leaders foster positive relationships by creating an environment where employees feel encouraged to share perspectives, experience psychological safety and feel valued (Carmeli et al., 2010; Hirak et al., 2012; Choi et al., 2015; Pless and Maak, 2004).

Lifespan development research provides a foundational understanding of how cognitive and behavioral differences exist among employees of different ages based on their perceptions of time (Beier and Kanfer, 2013; Kanfer and Ackerman, 2004; Salthouse, 2012, 2019; Truxillo et al., 2015; Rudolph, 2016). These differences are crucial for understanding how employees engage with various aspects of their work environment, including their relationships with supervisors. Socioemotional selectivity theory, proposed by Carstensen (1992, 1998), offers a detailed explanation of how age influences goal prioritization based on future time perspective, which Lewin (1951, p. 75) broadly defined as “the totality of the individual’s views of his psychological future and psychological past existing at a given time”. According to socioemotional selectivity theory, younger individuals, who generally perceive their future as expansive and full of opportunities, prioritize goals related to knowledge acquisition and new experiences (Carstensen et al., 2003; Rudolph, 2016). This might include seeking out challenging assignments, professional development opportunities and other activities that contribute to long-term skill development and career growth. In contrast, older individuals, who are more likely to perceive their future time as limited, tend to prioritize goals that emphasize emotional regulation and maintaining psychological well-being (Carstensen, 1995; Kanfer and Ackerman, 2004). They may focus more on fostering positive relationships to obtain personal value directly from experiencing positive social interactions (Okun and Schultz, 2003).

Given these differences in goal priorities, it is likely that employees of different ages may have varying perceptions of inclusive supervisory behavior. Younger employees place greater value on knowledge acquisition, which they pursue relentlessly and possibly at the cost of emotional satisfaction, and therefore may experience lower perceived inclusivity (Carstensen et al., 1999). On the other hand, older employees who prioritize emotional well-being and positive social interactions may attach greater importance to social relationships in the organization and with organizational members (Wöhrmann et al., 2016) and therefore perceive inclusive supervisory behaviors more positively. For them, an inclusive supervisor may be seen as someone who fosters trust and contributes to the development of emotional meaning (Rudolph, 2016). Thus, we hypothesize:

Socioemotional selectivity theory provides a framework for understanding how future time perspective influences the prioritization of socioemotional goals across different ages (Carstensen, 1987, 1991; Rudolph, 2016). As employees perceive their remaining time as limited or expansive, their focus shifts accordingly. Their needs, behavior and attitudes towards their work may change, affecting their perceptions of workplace social inclusion. Workplace social inclusion refers to the practices and behaviors within an organization that help employees feel valued, respected and fully integrated into the social and professional fabric of the workplace (Shore et al., 2011). With a broad future time perspective, younger employees are likely to prioritize instrumental goals and activities, such as acquiring knowledge, expanding their social networks and building their careers. Social inclusion, for them, may be interpreted as inclusion in professional networks, opportunities for skill development and a sense of being part of a dynamic, future-oriented workplace. They may dedicate more time attending internal social gatherings and invest time in building workplace social connections, leading to a stronger perception of workplace social inclusion (Pearce and Randel, 2004; Li et al., 2022).

On the other hand, older employees perceive their future time as more limited, and they are more likely to shift their focus towards maximizing affective outcomes, such as emotional well-being and meaningful interactions that bring positive experiences in the present (Li et al., 2022). For them, workplace social inclusion may be more about being part of a supportive, respectful and emotionally satisfying workplace where their contributions are appreciated and they can maintain positive relationships with colleagues, while it could be less about achieving long-term instrumental goals such as gaining knowledge and expanding their social networks. Thus, we hypothesize:

Lifespan theories of motivation have highlighted the role of an individual’s perceptions of future time on the development of goals (Carstensen, 2006; Kooij et al., 2018; Rudolph, 2016). Socioemotional selectivity theory posits that an individual’s future time perspective, conceptualized as an open-ended or constrained time horizon, plays a significant role in shaping the goals, plans and self-regulatory activities that govern action and outcomes (Rudolph, 2016). It asserts that younger individuals who perceive their time as expansive are likely to prioritize long-term, acquisition-focused goals such as career advancement and skill development. In contrast, as individuals age and perceive their time as finite, they shift their focus towards goals that provide immediate meaning and satisfaction, such as emotional well-being and maintaining positive relationships (Carstensen, 2006; Kooij et al., 2018; Zacher and Frese, 2009).

Several empirical studies have measured future time perspective and their relevant work outcomes (Kooij et al., 2018). Bal et al. (2008) applied socioemotional selectivity theory to explain the different effects of age on psychological contract breach and related outcomes. They found that older adults are better at regulating their emotions than younger adults following negative events, as the effect of contract breaches on trust and organizational commitment was lower for older individuals. This suggests that older employees may be less likely to leave an organization even when faced with negative work experiences, as they prioritize stability and emotional well-being over long-term career gains. Similarly, Bal et al. (2011) found that the link between procedural justice and turnover was negative for younger employees regardless of their trust in the leader, but no relationship was observed for older employees with low trust in the leader. Thus, we hypothesize:

Inclusive leadership fosters high-quality relationships between supervisors and followers by promoting belongingness and valuing uniqueness (Xiaotao et al., 2018). It creates an environment where subordinates are perceived as equal, eliminating differentiation between in-group and out-group members (Nishii, 2013). This environment encourages feelings of respect, value and the ability to contribute and engage (Pham et al., 2024). Additionally, inclusive leadership addresses issues such as leader inaccessibility (Hollander, 2012), bureaucratic hurdles (Wuffli, 2016), lack of psychological safety (Bashir et al., 2024; Lee and Dahinten, 2021) and conflict among employees (Boekhorst, 2015), mitigating negative emotions and behaviors such as disappointment, hopelessness and discrimination (Carmeli et al., 2010; Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006; Shore et al., 2011).

Inclusive supervisory behaviors serve as a positive role-model for other employees, influencing their inclusive attitudes and behaviors (Mayer et al., 2009). Consequently, the sense of belonging resulting from inclusive treatment by leaders and colleagues enhances workgroup identification and, by extension, perceptions of workplace social inclusion (Pearce and Randel, 2004; Randel et al., 2016). Thus, we hypothesize:

Social exchange theory helps predict the relationship between workplace social inclusion and turnover intention. Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) portrays the relationship between an employee and an organization as an exchange of valued resources. It suggests that employees are motivated to demonstrate positive attitudes and behaviors in the workplace when they perceive their employer values them and their contributions (Kuvaas and Dysvik, 2010; Lacerenza et al., 2024). Researchers have used social exchange theory to explain the motivation behind employee supportive behaviors and attitudes (Konovsky and Pugh, 1994). Social exchanges are often voluntary actions initiated by positive treatment of employees and the expectation of reciprocity; for instance, employees may be willing to demonstrate greater levels of loyalty and commitment to the organization (Hannigan, 2003).

Drawing on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), we argue that employees who perceive high levels of workplace social inclusion are likely to respond with lower levels of turnover intention. Perceived workplace social inclusion is generated by feelings of belonging and acceptance, fair treatment and individual recognition in the workplace (Pearce and Rondel, 2004). These feelings may be motivated by inclusive organizational practices and harmonious peer relations (Shore et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2016), which lead employees to perceive the organization as friendly and supportive of them and their values. In return, they are likely to form attachments and commit to the organization to continue the positive exchange relationship (Van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006). For instance, Chen and Tang (2018) found that perceived inclusion triggers employees’ organizational commitment and tightly connects employees with the workplace. Thus, we hypothesize:

Drawing on socioemotional selectivity theory and future time perspective (Carstensen, 2006; Kooij and Kanfer, 2019; Rudolph, 2016), we argue that individuals’ future time perspective conceptualized as either open-ended or constrained time horizon, based on age, will shape their goals and self-regulatory activities. Future time perspective reflects an individual’s perception of their future which plays a crucial role in shaping their motivations and actions (Kooij and Kanfer, 2019; Zacher and Frese, 2009). Workplace social inclusion, defined as the degree to which employees feel valued, accepted and connected within their work environment (Shore et al., 2011), is critical for employees.

Older employees prioritize emotional well-being and meaningful social interactions (Carstensen, 2006); their experience of social inclusion is likely to be more strongly linked to their overall job satisfaction and, therefore, increased retention (Park and Jung, 2015). This aligns with their primary goals of maintaining emotional well-being and positive social ties (Ng and Feldman, 2010). For example, Bal et al. (2011) found that older employees’ perceptions of fairness and trust in leadership had a strong impact on their turnover intention. This suggests that older employees may be more likely to stay in an organization where they feel socially included and emotionally supported. On the contrary, younger employees may prioritize career development and long-term career growth and value their current job as a means of acquiring knowledge/skills rather than try to avoid negative emotions related to their current job (Park and Jung, 2015). Hence, it is reasonable to argue that the negative association between workplace social inclusion and turnover intention will be stronger for older employees than for younger employees as the socially inclusive workplace is likely to reduce the turnover intentions for older employees. Thus, we hypothesize:

We employed a quantitative research design, with data collected through a survey of retail supervisors and frontline employees.

Data were collected through Qualtrics, a panel data provider with a wide range of members on its panel. Qualtrics was provided with a copy of the survey, a participant information sheet and participants’ eligibility criteria – an employee or supervisor of 18+ age from a retail organization operating in Australia. The survey was conducted in September 2021. To ensure data quality, a screening process was followed comprising multiple screening questions, attention check questions and flagging of speeders. We received 502 valid responses from 241 supervisors and 261 employees. The final sample was diverse with the following age composition: 147 from 18 to 24 years, 191 from 25 to 34 years, 92 from 35 to 44 years, 41 from 45 to 54 years and 31 from 55-plus years. The sample was also diverse in terms of gender and organization size: 305 women and 197 men, 187 from organizations with up to 100 employees and 315 from organizations with 100 plus employees.

Employee age. To ensure complete anonymity of respondents, the university ethics committee required the researchers to use age categories instead of asking for the exact age. Survey participants reported on their age by selecting one of the following five categories: 18–24 years, 25–34 years, 35–44 years, 45–54 years and 55 plus. Five dummy variables were created with each coded as 1 if a participant selected that category and 0 for all other four categories.

Inclusive Supervisory Behaviors. Inclusive supervisory behaviors were measured using the following six items (response choices from strongly disagree coded as 1 to strongly agree coded as 5 from Pless and Maak (2004): (1) My supervisor shows respect and recognition for others, (2) My supervisor shows appreciation for different voices, (3) My supervisor encourages open and frank communication, (4) My supervisor cultivates participative decision making and problem-solving processes, (5) My supervisor shows integrity and advanced moral reasoning and (6) My supervisor uses cooperative leadership style. Cronbach’s alpha for the current study is 0.92.

Workplace social inclusion. Workplace social inclusion was measured using the following three items from Pearce and Randel (2004): (1) I feel like an accepted part of a team, (2) I feel included in most activities at work and (3) Sometimes I feel like an outsider (reverse coded). Responses were coded on a scale ranging from strongly disagree (coded as 1) to strongly agree (coded as 5). The authors did not report Cronbach’s alpha, but the same scale’s alpha was reported as 0.72 by Chen and Tang (2018). The alpha for the current study is also 0.72.

Turnover intention. Turnover intention was measured using the following four items from Kelloway et al. (1999) with a reported alpha of 0.93: (1) I am thinking about leaving my current organization, (2) I am planning to look for a new job, (3) I intend to ask people about new job opportunities and (4) I don’t plan to be in my organization much longer. Responses were coded on a scale ranging from strongly disagree (coded as 1) to strongly agree (coded as 5). The alpha for the current study is also 0.93.

Employee gender. Gender was operationalized as a dummy variable with male coded as 0 and female coded as 1.

Job role. Role was operationalized as a dummy variable with supervisor coded as 0 and employee coded as 1.

Organization size. Organization size was operationalized as a dummy variable with up to 100 employees coded as 0 and greater than 100 as 1.

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations and correlations of the variables of the study.

Figure 2 presents the means of inclusive supervisory behaviors of five age categories.

A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was run with five categories of age as the independent variable and inclusive supervisory behaviors as the dependent variable. The test of homogeneity of variances (Levene statistics) was non-significant which suggests that we did not have to use the Welch correction. Results of the ANOVA showed no difference among the categories of age with regards to inclusive supervisory behaviors; F (4, 497) = 0.76, n.s. Thus, H1 was not supported.

Figure 3 presents the means of workplace social inclusion of five age categories. A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was run with five categories of age as the independent variable and social inclusion as the dependent variable. The test of homogeneity of variances (Levene statistics) was non-significant which suggests that we did not have to use the Welch correction. Results of the ANOVA showed a significant difference among the categories of age with regards to workplace social inclusion; F (4, 497) = 21.85, p < 0.05. The partial eta squared calculations suggest that the effect size is 0.025, suggesting that 2.5% variance in social inclusion is explained by the age categories. As the data was not balanced in terms of five age categories, Scheffe post-hoc analysis was performed. It suggests that only two age categories were significantly different from each other in terms of social inclusion. Employees with age 55 plus (n = 31, M = 4.08, SD = 0.70) have significantly higher workplace social inclusion perceptions than those of employees from the age category of 35–44 (n = 92, M = 3.50, SD = 0.88). Thus, H2 is partially supported.

Figure 4 presents the means of the turnover intention of five age categories. A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was run with five categories of age as the independent variable and turnover intention as the dependent variable. The test of homogeneity of variances (Levene statistics) was non-significant which suggests that we did not have to use the Welch correction. Results of the ANOVA showed a significant difference among the categories of age with regards to turnover intention; F (4, 497) = 8.61, p < 0.001. The partial eta squared calculations suggest that the effect size is 0.065, suggesting that a 6.5% variance in turnover intention is explained by the age categories. As the data was not balanced in terms of five age categories, Scheffe post-hoc analysis was performed. It suggests only the following age categories were significantly different from each other in terms of turnover intention: Employees with age 55 plus (n = 31, M = 1.97, SD = 1.04) have significantly lower turnover intention than employees from the following three age categories: 18–24 (n = 147, M = 3.06, SD = 1.22); 25–34 (n = 191, M = 3.07, SD = 1.17) and 35–44 (n = 92, M = 3.20, SD = 1.16). Employees with age 45–54 (n = 41, M = 2.51, SD = 1.26) have significantly lower turnover intention than employees from the age category of 35–44 (n = 92, M = 3.20, SD = 1.16). Thus, we found partial support for H3 (see Figure 5).

We used hierarchical regression analyses to test H4. Controls (employee gender, job role and organization size) were entered in Step 1, followed by inclusive supervisory behaviors in Step 2 (see Table 2). The results under Model 2 indicate that inclusive supervisory behaviors (β = 0.607, p < 0.001) had a significant positive effect on workplace social inclusion. Thus, H4 was supported.

H5 and H6 were tested using hierarchical regression analyses. Controls (employee gender, job role and organization size) were entered in Step 1, followed by workplace social inclusion in Step 2 (see Table 3). The results under Model 2 indicate that workplace social inclusion (β = −0.377, p < 0.001) had a significant negative effect on turnover intention. Thus, H5 was supported. To test H6, we created the interaction term of workplace social inclusion × employee age and included it along with employee age (see next para for its coding) in Step 3. Table 3 shows that the interaction term was significant (β = −0.542, p < 0.01). We plotted the relationship between workplace social inclusion and turnover intention for the two categories of employee age (see Figure 5). As predicted, the negative relation was stronger for older employees (slope: b = −0.774, p < 0.001) than for younger employees (slope: b = −0.405, p < 0.001). Thus, we found support for H6.

We followed a range of best practice recommendations for moderated multiple regression (Aguinis and Gottfredson, 2010). First, our independent variable of workplace social inclusion for H6 demonstrated acceptable levels of skewness of −0.45 (between −1 and + 1 is acceptable) and kurtosis of 0.08 (between −3 and 3 is acceptable) (Brown, 2015). Second, the predictor variable of workplace social inclusion was not centered for creating the interaction term, as zero was not a meaningful value for this variable. Third, our total sample size of 502 was quite large and the final subgroup proportions of 67/33 (younger/older) were justifiable for retail. We collapsed the five age categories (147 respondents from 18 to 24 years, 191 from 25 to 34 years, 92 from 35 to 44 years, 41 from 45 to 54 years and 31 from 55 plus years) into two employee age categories of 18–34 years and 35-plus years. The resultant employee age dummy variable (coded as 0 for 18–34 years and 1 for 35-plus) had a mean of 0.33 and a standard deviation of 0.47. As retail has a higher representation of young employees, we decided to use the cut-off point of 35 years and included 35–44, 45–54 and 55 plus categories in the older employee category. In another industry, 45-year age cut-off might be more suitable. Using a 45 cut-off would give us even fewer individuals in the older employee category.

Fourth, the reliability scores for both the predictor (workplace social inclusion 0.72) and the outcome variable (turnover intention 0.93) were above 0.70 and both measures comprised multiple items (Field, 2018). Fifth, the comparable homogeneity of error variance in regression analyses was satisfied via the mean square errors of 1.18 for younger employees and 1.24 for older employees (Aguinis et al., 1999). Sixth, the 0.031 effect size of the interaction term compared favorably to the mean effect size of 0.009 from management studies (Aguinis et al., 2005). Seventh, we plotted the effects for the two values of the moderator and calculated and reported their slopes.

An integration of H5 and H6 suggests that workplace social inclusion mediates the relationship between inclusive supervisory behaviors and turnover intention. Using the Process macro in SPSS, the results indicate that workplace social inclusion mediated the negative effect of inclusive supervisory behaviors on turnover intention (B = −0.311, LLCI −0.416, ULCI −0.217). The 95% bootstrap confidence intervals based on 5,000 samples did not include zero.

The main objective of this research was to understand inclusion in the context of employee age. The results largely support our hypotheses.

The results suggest that employees of different ages interpret supervisor behaviors in similar ways. This finding differs from past results of the supervisor characteristics shaping experiences of inclusive supervision (Davis and Cooper, 2017; Wuffli, 2016). One possible explanation is that identities, such as gender, are more pronounced than age (Davis and Cooper, 2017). The lifespan developmental perspective posits that individual attitudes, values and beliefs, which eventually are manifested in work behaviors, are related to age but also need to account for contextual factors such as historical events and time periods (Rudolph and Zacher, 2017). Therefore, people of different ages who lived through similar experiences may interpret supervisor behaviors similarly because of their common context.

The results indicate a significant difference of perceived workplace social inclusion among employees aged 55-plus and 35–44. This aligns with the propositions of socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1992, 1998), which suggests that future time perspective is experienced differently across age groups, and perceptions of inclusion are impacted by the different socioemotional goals that are prioritized at each stage (Rudolph, 2016). Specifically, as people move from a mid-career stage (age 35–44) to later career stages (55-plus), their priorities shift from learning towards stronger emotional connections (Kanfer and Ackerman, 2004; Rudolph, 2016), and therefore they value inclusion more than before. Moreover, such a shift also highlights the specifics of the social needs of employees: while people in mid-career stages (often between the ages of 35–44) are likely to focus on their family and family friends (Nagy et al., 2019) people aged 55-plus may value the number and quality of social ties they have at the workplace.

Regarding turnover intention, we found (1) employees aged 55-plus have lower turnover intention than employees aged 18–24 years, 25–34 years and 35–44 years, and (2) employees aged 45–54 have lower turnover intention than employees aged 35–44. These findings also partially support the socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1992, 1998) as various age groups cluster around different values and preferences (Smola and Sutton, 2002; Kooij et al., 2010; Rudoph et al., 2016). According to the theory, as people grow older, their future time perspective shifts to a shorter time horizon. For example, the mature age group (45–54 years) may need to provide for children and save for retirement, and employees aged 55-plus may have shorter-term economic (saving for retirement) and/or social (staying productive and vital) needs (Kooij et al., 2010, 2018). Such a change in future time perspective allows older employees to seek reconciliation within the workplace rather than quitting (Kooij et al., 2018).

Our findings indicate a positive relationship between inclusive supervisory behaviors and workplace social inclusion. Supervisors can foster inclusion both directly through creating a culture of respect and encouraging open communication (Boekhorst, 2015; Lee and Dahinten, 2021) and indirectly through serving as a personal example (Mayer et al., 2009). This finding is broadly consistent with past research on the ability of inclusive leadership to foster a sense of belonging (Pearce and Randel, 2004; Randel et al., 2016; Xiaotao et al., 2018) and provides additional evidence of the positive attitudinal outcomes of inclusive supervision.

This study found a negative relationship between workplace social inclusion and turnover intention which was stronger for older employees than for younger employees. These findings are in line with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964); employees who feel belongingness and acceptance are likely to reciprocate with loyalty, manifested in reduced turnover intention (Jansen et al., 2017; Sahin et al., 2019). The different effects for older vs younger employees are consistent with the lifespan perspective regarding differential preferences. Younger employees may focus on promotion, growth and employment experiences (Kooij et al., 2010). Conversely, older employees may feel a risk of being excluded and discriminated against (De Meulenaere et al., 2022; Griffin et al., 2016; Kunze et al., 2011), and as their priorities shift towards socioemotional needs (Rudolph et al., 2016), they value workplace social inclusion more over time.

This research makes several theoretical and research contributions. First, our findings show that even when employees from different age groups perceived inclusive supervisory behaviors in a similar way, their perceptions of workplace social inclusion were different across age groups. These findings support the lifespan perspective in general and the socioemotional selectivity theory in particular (Carstensen, 1992, 1998). The lifespan perspective (Beier and Kanfer, 2013; Kanfer and Ackerman, 2004; Rudolph, 2016) emphasizes psychological changes over life stages, in the context of time and shifting priorities. Understanding that employees may differ in valuing various factors (mastery, knowledge, advancement, connections, etc.) over time is important in order to cater to the changing needs. Our theorizing extends this perspective for age differences in the context of workplace social inclusion. As the lifespan perspective covers different foci of interest, our results extend this perspective specifically for workplace social inclusion, which is a construct that grows in importance in the modern workplace.

Second, our multiple findings support, extend and refine Carstensen’s (1992, 1998) socioemotional selectivity theory application to turnover intention. Specifically, our results refine the theory in two ways: (1) turnover intentions were different across various age groups–employees aged 55-plus have lower turnover intention than employees aged 18–24 years, 25–34 years and 35–44 years, and employees aged 45–54 have lower turnover intention than employees aged 35–44, and (2) different strength of a negative relationship between workplace social inclusion and turnover intention for older vs younger employees. This suggests a more nuanced approach to age differences and requires a deeper investigation into commonalities and differences across age groups. These results broadly align with socioemotional selectivity theory in terms of changing time horizon (Carstensen, 2006; Kooij et al., 2018; Rudolph, 2016) as we identify differences across the 35–44 and 45–54 age groups which are sometimes lumped together.

Third, the finding pertaining to a positive relationship between inclusive supervisory behaviors and workplace social inclusion strengthens the arguments put forth by Teo et al. (2022) on the importance of inclusive leadership (Mor Barak, 2015; Roberson, 2006; Shore et al., 2018). Subsequently, workplace social inclusion is negatively associated with employee turnover intention, which supports and extends social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Employees reciprocate workplace social inclusion with increased loyalty reflected in lower turnover intention. Inclusion, as discussed by Shore et al. (2018), is regarded as a critical component that complements diversity. While diversity fosters a heterogeneous workplace which can potentially improve organizational performance, realizing its benefits requires ensuring that employees have opportunities to actively participate and contribute (Mor Barak, 2015). As the demographic factor of age is not as often discussed in the occupational context compared to other factors such as gender and race, it is important to consider potential differences and similarities across age groups. In regard to perceptions of workplace social inclusion, we demonstrate that age is an important demographic diversity dimension, expanding the discussion beyond discrimination (e.g. Cebola et al., 2021) and generational values (e.g. Lyons and Kuron, 2014).

Fourth, our theorizing and findings focus on motivational aspects of aging (Beier et al., 2022) and refer to shifting needs and priorities that can be catered to and then mobilized for improved organizational performance (e.g. improved retention). While the literature on age diversity acknowledges the changes in capabilities over the lifespan, our approach does not differentiate between these but sees all employees as a part of the overall human capital that organizations strive to retain. Although socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1992, 1998) has been classified as a theory that integrates age-related changes in both ability and motivation, our hypotheses are more focused on changing time perspective as it impacts the value people place in social inclusion and as a result their turnover intention. As such, our findings allow to address workforce shortages by improving the utilization of human capital through a focus on employee well-being in the context of age diversity (Beier et al., 2022).

Our findings offer important practical implications. The disparities between organizational and employee perspectives on inclusion highlight the importance of bridging the gap between organizational aspirations and the lived experiences of employees (Leslie, 2019). Organizations that wish to increase organizational diversity need to pay attention to signals from employees and adapt their policies and practices accordingly. This is particularly important for industries that experience workforce shortages, such as the Australian retail industry. The paradox in retail is that while its dominant employee age segment sector is shrinking, especially in the light of COVID-19 (Dunsby, 2021), the industry fails to realize the potential benefits of the older workforce who may still be capable and interested in remaining employed (Parker, 2021). While there are specific requirements of the retail industry, such as adaptability, technological knowledge and physical demands (Kunze et al., 2011), mature and older employees may be capable of performing such tasks while also providing unique strengths such as experience, problem-solving skills and strong work ethics (Skirbekk, 2004). Understanding the shifting time perspective may help employers to effectively address different employee needs in the context of age-related changes (Murray and Syed, 2005), especially in the context of workforce shortages where employee retention is crucial, and social inclusion can play an important role in reducing voluntary turnover.

Our findings demonstrate that supervisors need to pay attention to age differences in perceived workplace social inclusion, particularly to the 35–44 age group which is under a higher risk of not feeling socially included. At the same time, there is an opportunity to increase workplace loyalty: while mature age 45–54 and aged 55-plus employees are underrepresented in the retail industry, they demonstrate lower turnover intentions compared to younger employees. Adding to past studies that provided evidence for a business case for age diversity (Ali and French, 2019; Kunze et al., 2021), our findings provide an economic case for hiring mature-aged and aged employees in the retail industry who may stay longer with the organization and represent an important customer segment, leading to possible improved organizational performance. These findings also suggest that supervisors need to pay attention to younger age groups that have higher turnover intentions and identify ways to retain them. As there are differences across age groups (18–24, 25–34 and 35–44 years), a more tailored approach will satisfy the diverse needs of employees at a specific life stage (Murray and Syed, 2005).

To harness the potential of this distinct workforce segment, managers need to consider a few key aspects: the foremost consideration is removing barriers to employment for older employees. Ageism may not only permeate hiring practices but also affect performance evaluations, such that older employees are exited from the workforce involuntarily while they still have much to contribute (Cebola et al., 2021; Harris et al., 2018). Employers can adopt the “revolving door” strategy, allowing retiring individuals to re-enter the organization, providing them with flexibility and, at the same time, improving the potential employee pool (Shacklock et al., 2007). Moreover, diverse employees should not only be recruited and retained but also fully included in organizational activities, making them feel welcome and accepted (Shore et al., 2018), leading to them fulfilling their potential. In order to improve inclusion, our findings highlight the role of the supervisors, who can foster workplace social inclusion by encouraging voice and instilling a sense of respect. We, therefore, recommend training and coaching for supervisors to develop inclusive supervisory behaviors, which can help improve workplace social inclusion and reduce turnover intention for both older and younger employees.

Another suggestion would be to allow and encourage job-crafting, such that employees will be able to adapt the different aspects of their job to changing needs, for example, more contact with others (Beier et al., 2022). Finally, considering the shifting needs over the lifespan, we recommend providing a variety of activities that will cater to different age groups. For example, professional development workshops may be attractive for the younger age groups, and socially oriented activities may be more relevant for older age groups. Offering a wide range of activities may help improve employees’ experiences by demonstrating awareness of different interests and developing a sense of inclusion.

This study has a few limitations that are important to acknowledge. As it focused on a specific industry in Australia, its generalizability is warranted both in terms of industrial and cultural context. As approaches to managing diversity may differ across different cultural and legal contexts (Boekhorst, 2015; Lee and Dahinten, 2021), it is advisable to conduct studies of similar focus in other cultures, particularly in non-Anglo countries. It would be worthwhile to examine age composition and its potential outcomes in other industries, such as accommodation and food services, where age discrimination may be a potential issue.

Our study focused on employee perceptions of inclusive supervisory behaviors, workplace social inclusion and turnover intention. It did not include objective metrics such as inclusion-related human resource practices and turnover rate (Ali and French, 2019). Future research should consider both subjective and objective measures for a more comprehensive understanding (Xiaotao et al., 2018). Moreover, our age variables comprised five categories as per the ethics approval, which were collapsed into two categories of younger vs older employees using 35 years of age as a cut-off point. This was done to investigate the differential effects of workplace social inclusion on turnover intention. This cut-off point may seem low, but it is appropriate for retail’s young workforce. A moderating test using a continuous age variable may provide additional insights. Future research on age diversity in retail may benefit from testing comprehensive models that include organizational-level factors (e.g. age diversity and age diversity practices), work unit-level factors (e.g., age-inclusive supervision/leadership) and contextual factors (e.g. store size), when predicting organizational and individual outcomes.

The authors thank the Australian Retailers Association for funding this research.