Age diversity management and organisational outcomes: The role of diversity perspectives

• Date: 01 April 2019
• Author: Muhammad Ali,Erica French
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12225
• Published date: 01 April 2019

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Age diversity management and organisational

outcomes: The role of diversity perspectives

Muhammad Ali |Erica French

QUT Business School, Queensland University

of Technology

Correspondence

Dr Muhammad Ali, QUT Business School,

Queensland University of Technology, 2

George Street, Brisbane, Queensland 4001,

Australia.

Email: m3.ali@qut.edu.au

Abstract

Several macro‐level and meso‐level factors have led to

unprecedented proportions of aged employees in organisa-

tions, resulting in higher levels of age diversity. Little is

known about which age diversity practices and programmes

are effective in which types of organisations for which

outcomes. Derived from social exchange theory, this paper

proposes and tests positive relationships between age

diversity practices and organisational outcomes and work‐

life programmes and organisational outcomes. Derived from

contingency theory, it also proposes and tests for a

moderating effect of diversity perspective (fairness and dis-

crimination vs. synergy) on the two main relationships. Data

were collected from 248 medium to large‐sized for‐profit

organisations. The results partially support both main effect

hypotheses and one moderating effect hypothesis. The

findings suggest different organisational outcomes for age

diversity practices and work‐life programmes. Theoretical

and practical implications are discussed.

KEYWORDS

age diversity, diversity perspectives, diversity practices, social

exchange theory, work‐life programmes

1|INTRODUCTION

“Aged”is defined differently in various reporting and social contexts but generally refers to people aged 60 years or

above (United Nations, 2017). However, retirement planning and managing diversity in organisations often focus on

mature or older employees aged 45 or above, referred to as “aged”in these contexts (Australian Human Resources

Institute, 2014; Diversity Council Australia, 2013; Vasconcelos, 2015; Warren, 2015; Wilkins, 2017). The ageing

workforce (increasing proportions of aged employees in an organisation's workforce) is a challenge facing many of

Received: 20 March 2017 Revised: 14 November 2018 Accepted: 21 November 2018

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12225

Hum Resour Manag J. 2019;29:287–307. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltdwileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj 287

today's organisations (Jackson & Jenkins, 2014; Wilson, 2015). The factors contributing to an ageing workforce

include an ageing population—increasing proportions of aged people, attributed to increasing life spans and

decreasing birth rates (Chand & Tung, 2014); higher labour‐force participation rates among aged people (OECD,

2016); skills shortages in changing markets (Productivity Commission, 2013); delayed retirement of veterans and

baby boomers (Treasury, 2015); and organisations' increased use of retention strategies (Kooij, Jansen, Dikkers, &

De Lange, 2014; Stone & Tetrick, 2013). Scholars around the world have started focusing on the challenge of

managing an ageing workforce (Hertel & Zacher, 2016).

The ageing workforce literature can be categorised as follows: generational differences, stereotypes, and

discrimination research (e.g., Chiu, Chan, Snape, & Redman, 2001; Cogin, 2012; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Parry & Urwin,

2011; Snape & Redman, 2003); organisational age diversity, processes, and outcomes research (e.g., Ali, Ng, & Kulik,

2014; Avery, McKay, & Hunter, 2012; Backes‐Gellner & Veen, 2013; De Meulenaere, Boone, & Buyl, 2015; James,

McKechnie, & Swanberg, 2011; Kunze, Boehm, & Bruch, 2011; Li, Chu, Lam, & Liao, 2011); perceived diversity

practices and employee outcomes research (e.g., Kooij et al., 2013; Kooij, Jansen, Dikkers, & De Lange, 2010; Peretz,

Levi, & Fried, 2015; Rabl & del CarmenTriana, 2014); and age diversity management (diversity practices and work‐life

programmes) and organisational outcomes research (e.g., Boehm, Kunze, & Bruch, 2014; Kunze, Boehm, & Bruch,

2013). The research on generational differences, stereotypes, and discrimination helps with diversity training

(Armstrong‐Stassen & Templer, 2005). Organisational age diversity, processes, and outcomes research provide

evidence for a business case for age diversity and thus help managers in seeking top‐management commitment

(Donnelly, 2015), whereas perceived diversity practices and employee outcomes research assist managers to

micro‐manage employee perceptions (Kooij et al., 2013). However, it is the age diversity management research that

can equip managers with the necessary tools (i.e., practices and programmes, such as examining performance rating

distributions for aged employees and sponsoring an aged employees' support group) to manage an age‐diverse

workforce for positive outcomes (Boehm & Dwertmann, 2015; Kulik, Ryan, Harper, & George, 2014; Truxillo &

Fraccaroli, 2013). Unmanaged or poorly managed diversity can result in negative outcomes such as high turnover

and lower organisational performance (e.g., Ali, Metz, & Kulik, 2015; Kunze et al., 2013; Schneid, Isidor, Steinmetz,

& Kabst, 2016).

Although the first three research categories have received considerable attention, far less is known about which

age diversity practices and work‐life programmes produce superior organisational outcomes. The empirical evidence

is thin, both in terms of the number of studies and the number of practices and programmes studied (Bieling, Stock, &

Dorozalla, 2015; Boehm et al., 2014; Kunze et al., 2013). More importantly, there is little empirical evidence about

which organisational diversity management perspective (overall approach to diversity management) strengthens or

weakens the impact of age diversity management on organisational outcomes (Dwertmann, Nishii, & Knippenerg,

2016; Thomas & Ely, 1996). The fairness and discrimination perspective aims for equal employment opportunities

and the absence of discrimination, whereas the synergy perspective focuses on actively valuing individuals'

differences to create positive outcomes (Dwertmann et al., 2016).

This study advances our knowledge of age diversity management in several ways. First, it tests social exchange

theory (Emerson, 1976) and contingency theory (Galbraith, 1973) for age diversity management. Specifically, it

hypothesises and tests whether age diversity practices and work‐life programmes lead to superior organisational

outcomes. Moreover, it pioneers research in proposing that the positive relationship between age diversity

management and organisational outcomes is contingent on an organisation's diversity perspective (Dwertmann

et al., 2016). Second, the current study addresses important research gaps. It adds to a very small body of research

investigating the relationship between age diversity management and organisational outcomes (Bieling et al., 2015;

Boehm et al., 2014; Kunze et al., 2013). More importantly, it provides pioneering evidence of a moderating effect

of diversity perspectives on the age diversity management–performance relationship.

Third, the conceptual framework, design, and methods of our study provide strong empirical evidence. In

particular, we include a range of age diversity practices and work‐life programmes (Truxillo, Cadiz, & Hammer,

2015). Past age diversity management research has focused on a small set of age diversity practices and does not

288 ALI AND FRENCH