Aging and Interpersonal Strain: The Role of Self-Efficacy and Social Drivers of Inclusive Workplaces

Abstract

As the global workforce ages and multiple generations collaborate in workplaces, addressing the unique needs of diverse age groups becomes critical. Grounded in Social Cognitive Theory, this study examines how regulatory emotional self-efficacy in managing negative emotions serves as a crucial personal resource in protecting against interpersonal strain. It also explores whether this relationship varies between middle-aged and senior employees. Age-related improvements in emotional self-efficacy highlight its significance in shaping perceptions of workplace inclusivity, defined by the inclusive behaviors of social drivers: colleagues, supervisors, and top management. A total of 1068 employees from a leading European telecommunication organization completed online questionnaires measuring regulatory emotional self-efficacy, social drivers of inclusive workplaces, and interpersonal strain. Mediation analyses revealed that regulatory emotional self-efficacy is positively associated with perceptions of inclusive social drivers, which, in turn, are negatively related to interpersonal strain. Multi-group analyses demonstrated that the protective effects of regulatory emotional self-efficacy differ by age. While inclusive colleagues mediate the relationship across all age groups, inclusive top management is particularly significant for employees aged 45–54. These findings deepen the understanding of age-specific dynamics in fostering workplace inclusion and underscore the necessity of tailored organizational strategies to support employee well-being across the lifespan.

1. Introduction

Older workers constitute the fastest-growing segment of the global workforce, with projections indicating that by 2050, the population aged 60 and above will surpass 2 billion (Global Coalition on Aging 2024). However, only 15% of organizations have proactively addressed this demographic shift (Global Coalition on Aging 2024). To ensure long-term sustainability and inclusivity, organizations must develop a comprehensive “longevity strategy” that acknowledges the diverse needs of various generational cohorts (Irving 2018). While age diversity presents significant opportunities for optimizing workforce capabilities (Rudolph and Zacher 2024), effective management of a multigenerational workforce requires a nuanced understanding of the differing values, motivations, and well-being concerns of both older and younger employees (Truxillo et al. 2017). Although the mental health challenges encountered by younger workers are well documented (van Veen et al. 2023), older employees face unique stressors (e.g., ageism, chronic health conditions, and techno-stressors; Cebola et al. 2023; Hybels et al. 2022; Sommovigo et al. 2023a; Vanajan et al. 2022). The Mental Health Index (2023) has reported that middle-aged and senior workers have experienced the most considerable increases in health-related issues in recent years. In light of these trends, scholars advocate for age-sensitive interventions tailored to the specific needs associated with various life stages (Truxillo et al. 2017). This approach is critical for fostering inclusive and sustainable practices aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly in promoting decent work for all (United Nations 2024). In this regard, critical reviews (e.g., Halbesleben et al. 2014) challenge the assumption that job resources provide uniform benefits to all workers, emphasizing the necessity to examine how resource availability influences well-being outcomes differently across age groups. However, the age-related differential impact of workplace resources has only recently begun to attract increased scholarly attention, indicating that further research is essential (e.g., Yaldiz et al. 2018). This emerging focus is crucial, as aging is accompanied by multidimensional changes throughout the lifespan, encompassing physical declines (such as chronic health conditions, Vanajan et al. 2022) and cognitive shifts (for instance, reductions in fluid abilities alongside increases in crystallized intelligence, Fisher et al. 2017). From a lifespan developmental perspective (Carstensen 2021; Rauvola and Rudolph 2023), aging in the workplace is also characterized by shifts in social roles and personal resources, which may increase susceptibility to burnout. This underscores the importance of identifying protective factors for middle-aged and older employees. Accordingly, a meta-analysis on burnout determinants (O’Connor et al. 2018) links advancing age to an elevated risk of depersonalization, thus highlighting the need for targeted strategies to alleviate the interpersonal aspects of burnout.

One significant factor to consider is interpersonal strain at work (Borgogni et al. 2012), which plays a crucial role due to its effects on workplace relationships and the quality of service delivered (Santarpia et al. 2024a). While depersonalization is often characterized by a detached, impersonal attitude toward service recipients (Montgomery and Maslach 2019) and is frequently discussed in the context of client-facing roles, interpersonal strain encompasses a broader form of psychological distancing that can extend beyond client interactions. Specifically, it involves strained and effortful social exchanges across various workplace relationships, including those with colleagues, supervisors, and clients (Consiglio 2014). Interpersonal strain refers to disengagement in work relationships due to excessive social and emotional pressures (Consiglio et al. 2014). Not all employees are equally susceptible to interpersonal strain; individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy exhibit significantly greater resilience to burnout symptoms (Consiglio et al. 2013; Laschinger et al. 2015). This resilience is primarily attributable to their positive cognitive appraisal of interpersonal challenges, which they perceive as opportunities for growth rather than as threats (Beard et al. 2019; Müller-Pinzler et al. 2019). Such an adaptive mindset fosters persistence in the face of adversity, reducing tendencies to withdraw from or avoid challenging interactions (Consiglio 2014; Santarpia et al. 2024a). In this regard, Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy in Negative Emotions (RESE-NE) is a particularly crucial domain-specific form of self-efficacy, as it reflects an individual’s ability to manage and recover from negative emotions elicited by work-related adversities, including those stemming from social interactions (Alessandri et al. 2023; Caprara et al. 2008). Individuals with high RESE-NE tend to perceive difficulties as manageable challenges, adapt effectively, and cope better, believing in their ability to handle and learn from such situations (Alessandri et al. 2023; Bandura 2001).

Within the framework of Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura 1997, 2023), these individuals also hold more positive expectations of social interactions, which they interpret in alignment with their self-efficacy beliefs, making them less likely to interpret social and emotional pressures as overwhelming (Nieuwkerk 2022; Santarpia et al. 2024a). However, the protective role of RESE-NE against interpersonal strain has yet to be studied, nor is it known whether this relationship varies across different age groups. As individuals age, they tend to develop greater emotional self-efficacy, becoming increasingly adept at regulating their emotions and experiencing fewer negative emotional responses (Burr et al. 2021). This improvement in emotional regulation is part of a broader trend of heightened socioemotional competence with age, which encompasses better stress-coping mechanisms and enhanced emotional control (Burr et al. 2021).

Moreover, as people age, they progressively refine and rely on a select set of emotional self-regulation strategies that, through experience, have proven effective in their specific circumstances and given their available resources (Mikkelsen et al. 2024). This refinement results in less variability in their emotion regulation—a reduction in erratic or inconsistent attempts to manage emotions (Elkjær et al. 2022)—across different individuals (Benson et al. 2019), leading to greater overall well-being (Mikkelsen et al. 2024). Additionally, aging is related to a cognitive bias toward positivity, where older adults demonstrate a heightened focus on and recall of positive rather than negative information (Carstensen and DeLiema 2018). This tendency to concentrate on the positive aspects of situations and relationships (Luong et al. 2018) may contribute to sustaining their RESE-NE (Heckhausen et al. 2010). Given these age-related developments and the protective role of self-efficacy in preventing burnout (Shoji et al. 2016), it is imperative to investigate how individual differences in RESE-NE (Caprara et al. 2008) shape employees’ interpretations of their work environment across different age groups. Thus, RESE-NE can also shape individual interpretations of their social environment, particularly within the social work context.

Perceptions of social context (Borgogni et al. 2023) refer to an individual’s perceptions of behaviors related to role expectations exhibited by primary social components within an organization, namely colleagues, immediate supervisors, and top management. Unlike social support, which focuses on the availability of assistance, perceptions of social context emphasize the perception of behaviors that meet employees’ social needs, such as belonging, trust, control, and self-enhancement (Consiglio et al. 2016). These perceptions provide a crucial social “frame of reference” for employees, which helps them make sense of and interpret information and events in the workplace (Lawrence 2006). Recently, Santarpia et al. (2024b) introduced an integrated framework for understanding workplace inclusion by merging the perceptions of the social context framework (Borgogni et al. 2010) with the model of inclusive workplaces (Shore et al. 2018). This model (Shore et al. 2018) characterizes an inclusive organization as one that consistently champions inclusivity at all levels, highlighting six essential dimensions: psychological safety, workgroup engagement, respect, influence in decision-making, authenticity, and the value of diversity. Santarpia et al. (2024b) utilize this integrated approach to define the social drivers of inclusive workplaces as the specific inclusive behaviors demonstrated by the three key actors identified in the perceptions of social context framework. More specifically, inclusive colleagues foster constructive dialogue and embrace diversity; inclusive supervisors actively counter bias and integrate differences within teams; and inclusive top management implements equitable policies that promote diversity and ensure fair treatment (Santarpia et al. 2024b).

Although evidence suggests that stronger general self-efficacy beliefs correlate with more positive perceptions of social context (Borgogni et al. 2011, 2023; Consiglio et al. 2016), no prior studies have investigated whether RESE-NE could contribute to more favorable social drivers of inclusive workplaces. Moreover, there is limited research on the role of perceptions of social context and social drivers of inclusive workplaces in preventing interpersonal strain (De Simone et al. 2021; Santarpia et al. 2024b), and no previous study has examined age group differences in this context. To address this gap, this study aims to explore whether employees with high RESE-NE are inclined to perceive favorable social drivers of inclusive workplaces, potentially rendering them less susceptible to interpersonal strain. Furthermore, this study aims to examine whether this relationship varies between middle-aged and senior age groups. Thus, this study moves a step forward in the age diversity literature as it is the first to identify social drivers of inclusive workplaces as a mechanism explaining how RESE-NE protects from interpersonal strain. This study offers valuable insights into how organizations can address the specific needs of an aging workforce by clarifying the distinct role of each social driver in middle-aged and senior age groups. This holds paramount importance in guiding age diversity management interventions aimed at cultivating more inclusive workplaces where employees can effectively contribute and maintain their well-being.

1.1. The Relationship Between RESE-NE and Social Drivers of Inclusive Workplaces

Individuals with high RESE-NE exhibit advanced emotional regulation, enabling them to effectively manage and constructively interpret emotionally charged events (e.g., interpersonal challenges; Milioni et al. 2015). These individuals typically experience lower physiological stress and more moderate neuroendocrine responses to environmental stimuli due to their higher threshold for perceiving threats (Bandura 1997; Schickel et al. 2023; Schönfeld et al. 2017). Their positive interpretation bias and optimistic outlook lead them to view others’ behaviors in a favorable light and expect positive outcomes from interactions (Beard et al. 2019; Müller-Pinzler et al. 2019). These individuals can also swiftly recover from negative emotional states and restore positive affect, fostering resilience in social contexts (Kilic and Gök 2023; Parke et al. 2015). Their constructive cognitive approach might predispose them to interpret ambiguous or neutral social cues as inclusive rather than exclusionary (Bandura 1997; Nieuwkerk 2022). For instance, while some employees might interpret a minimally detailed meeting invitation as an oversight, individuals with high RESE-NE are more likely to view it as an inclusive opportunity to contribute. Similarly, these employees tend to perceive diversity initiatives and supervisor acts as authentic efforts to promote inclusion, rather than superficial gestures (Zhu et al. 2019; Mor Barak 2017). Such perceptions are closely aligned with their heightened self-efficacy, which fosters a solutions-oriented approach to navigating interpersonal dynamics (Bandura 1997; Nieuwkerk 2022). Their perceived emotional regulation capabilities further promote active engagement and constructive interactions in diverse social environments, reinforcing a sense of belonging and acceptance within their workplace (Ng et al. 2022; Rajendran et al. 2020; Tatum 2018). This optimistic outlook not only enhances their ability to view workplace behaviors as inclusive but also motivates them to actively contribute to fostering a collaborative environment (Zhu et al. 2019; Santarpia et al. 2024a). These favorable interpretations are reinforced by their behaviors, as employees with high RESE-NE tend to exhibit socially desirable behavior, believing they can effectively monitor their actions through emotional self-regulation (Nieuwkerk 2022).

This optimistic mindset leads them to engage more positively with others in their social sphere (Consiglio et al. 2016) and enhances their confidence in cultivating meaningful relations with others, collaborating to solve conflicts constructively (Sommovigo et al. 2023b). While how RESE-NE shapes perceptions of workplace inclusion has yet to be studied, this positive mindset might predispose them to perceive and develop meaningful workplace relationships that might further bolster their sense of inclusion at all organizational levels—from colleagues to supervisors and top management (Borgogni et al. 2010; Caprara et al. 2012; Shore et al. 2011; Sommovigo et al. 2023b). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1.

RESE-NE will be positively associated with perceptions of inclusive social drivers (Hp1a: inclusive colleagues; Hp1b: inclusive supervisors; Hp1c: inclusive top management).

1.2. The Relationship Between Social Drivers of Inclusive Workplaces and Interpersonal Strain

Recently, Santarpia et al. (2024b) found that the three social drivers of inclusive workplaces negatively correlated with interpersonal strain. Consistent with the inclusion literature (Behnke et al. 2022; Panicker and Sharma 2020), employees perceiving inclusive behaviors from colleagues, supervisors, and top management were less likely to disengage from workplace relationships. Conversely, power and status inequalities exacerbated strained work-related relationships (Wallace and Buchanan 2020), while inclusive work environments reduced vulnerability to burnout symptoms (Behnke et al. 2022). Moreover, the literature on perceptions of social context indicates that positive work perceptions protect against interpersonal strain at work (De Simone et al. 2018, 2021). Inclusive colleagues contribute to a harmonious workplace (Santarpia et al. 2024b), fostering interpersonal connections and acceptance within the workgroup, which builds mutual trust, respect, and cooperation (Brimhall et al. 2022). This helps manage workplace stressors and fulfills employees’ need for belonging, ensuring they feel accepted, supported, and cared for by their peers (Shore et al. 2018; Wolgast and Fischer 2017), thus preventing psychological distance and disengagement from others at work (De Simone et al. 2021). When team members feel heard and appreciated by their peers, they are more likely to express differing viewpoints without fearing exclusion (Yousaf et al. 2022). This fosters interpersonal communication and knowledge sharing within the workgroup, essential for balancing the need for belongingness and uniqueness (Yousaf et al. 2022; Shore et al. 2018), reducing team members’ susceptibility to interpersonal strain. Likewise, inclusive supervisors can address their collaborators’ belonging needs by ensuring respect and advocating for equitable treatment (Santarpia et al. 2024b; Shore and Chung 2022). They can also fulfill uniqueness needs by encouraging diverse contributions, supporting self-expression, and encouraging authenticity (Randel et al. 2018; Shore et al. 2018). This approach can diminish feelings of injustice and promote open communication, making team members more likely to voice concerns, seek assistance, and engage in other-oriented behaviors (Guo et al. 2022; Lee and Dahinten 2021; Zeng et al. 2020). As a result, employees could view social and emotional demands as less overwhelming, reducing their burnout susceptibility (Gerich and Weber 2020).

Furthermore, since supervisors are perceived as embodying the set of behaviors most consistent with the organizational ideal (Hogg and van Knippenberg 2003), they play a vital role in preventing interpersonal strain among collaborators by serving as a role model for the entire organization (Shore and Chung 2022). They foster similar conduct across all levels and lay the foundation for an inclusive organizational culture rooted in values of respect, fairness, and equity (Mor Barak et al. 2022; Johnsen et al. 2022; Shore and Chung 2022). In this regard, supervisors can not only undertake supportive actions, such as being present and attentive, to provide collaborators facing exclusion with resources but also demonstrate proactive behaviors involving outward displays of support (Shore and Chung 2022). These may include publicly condemning disrespectful conduct, implementing practices that discourage exclusionary behavior, and actively contributing to the reduction in conflictual, exclusionary, and harassing behaviors at work (Shore and Chung 2022), which, if present, could lead to interpersonal strain at work (Santarpia et al. 2024b).

Similarly, when top management implements inclusive policies and practices, such as transparent communication channels for sharing concerns, conflict resolution mechanisms, and support systems that offer resources (e.g., training) for effectively managing interpersonal challenges, it signals the organization’s commitment to inclusion (Andrieu et al. 2023; Sabharwal 2014). These tangible actions validate employees’ efforts to adopt inclusive behaviors, as they see these actions mirrored by top management (Sabharwal 2014), resulting in positive working relationships and reduced interpersonal strain (Santarpia et al. 2024b). Thus, building on previous inclusion and research on perceptions of social context, it is anticipated that employees perceiving their colleagues, supervisors, and top management as inclusive will be less likely to experience interpersonal strain. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2.

Overall social drivers (Hp2a) and their components (Hp2b: colleagues; Hp2c: supervisors; Hp2d: top management) are negatively related to interpersonal strain at work.

1.3. Unpacking the Mediating Role of Social Drivers of Inclusive Workplaces: Linking Self-Efficacy to Interpersonal Strain

Given their optimistic outlook and positive interpretation bias, individuals with high RESE-NE tend to view others favorably and expect constructive outcomes in interactions (Beard et al. 2019; Müller-Pinzler et al. 2019). Although the impact of RESE-NE on workplace inclusion is not widely studied, this mindset likely helps them perceive colleagues, supervisors, and top management as more inclusive, reinforced by their emotional self-regulation (Nieuwkerk 2022). Their confidence in managing emotions strengthens their ability to build meaningful relationships, resolve conflicts constructively, and foster fulfilling social connections, promoting favorable perceptions of SDIWs (Alessandri et al. 2009; Consiglio et al. 2016; Sommovigo et al. 2023b). These perceptions can fulfill employees’ basic psychological needs and help them perceive job demands as more manageable (Gerich and Weber 2020). This could be facilitated by the availability of support and the creation of reciprocal support dynamics wherein organizational members feel valued and understood by one another (Shore et al. 2018; Shore and Chung 2022). This can allow them to preserve emotional energy for relations at work and avoid disengagement in those relationships (Santarpia et al. 2024b). Conversely, employees with low RESE-NE may perceive social events as threatening and make more negative interpretations, validating their low self-efficacy beliefs (Beard et al. 2019; Watson and Nesdale 2012). Anticipating rejection, they may interpret social situations negatively (Spithoven et al. 2017), leading to feelings of loneliness (Nieuwkerk 2022) and less positive perceptions of social context (Consiglio et al. 2016). These negative interpretations can manifest in behavior, making maintaining inclusive social relations with others at work difficult, leading to interpersonal strain at work (Santarpia et al. 2024b). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3.

Total social drivers of inclusive workplaces (3a), and their components, inclusive colleagues(3b), inclusive supervisors (3c), and inclusive top management (3d), mediate the relationship between RESE-NE and interpersonal strain at work.

1.4. Age-Related Differences in the Relevance of Social Drivers of Inclusive Workplaces

Emerging research highlights the significant mental health challenges faced by middle-aged and senior workers—issues that have often been eclipsed by the widely recognized struggles of younger employees (van Veen et al. 2023). The Mental Health Index (2023) reveals a troubling trend: these demographics have experienced the steepest rise in health issues in recent years. Additionally, a comprehensive meta-analysis on burnout determinants (O’Connor et al. 2018) highlights a strong association between advancing age and an elevated risk of depersonalization. This underscores the urgent need to identify protective factors that address the interpersonal dimensions of burnout and support the well-being of middle-aged and senior workers. Thus, this demographic represents a substantial and indispensable segment of the workforce, frequently occupying leadership and mentorship roles essential for organizational growth (Hedge et al. 2006). Neglecting their mental health has cascading consequences, including diminished productivity, higher turnover, and the loss of institutional knowledge critical to organizational continuity (Ng and Feldman 2010).

Economically, addressing the mental health needs of middle-aged and older employees is vital in the context of aging populations and global labor shortages (Bloom et al. 2015). Supporting longer, healthier careers alleviates pressure on social welfare systems and ensures the retention of vital expertise and experience (Börsch-Supan et al. 2019). Additionally, fostering workplace inclusivity combats ageism, promotes equity, and nurtures a collaborative organizational culture (Posthuma and Campion 2009). Investing in the mental health of middle-aged and senior workers also bolsters intergenerational collaboration, facilitating knowledge transfer and mentorship that strengthen organizational resilience (Filimonau et al. 2020; Kulik et al. 2014). By addressing these challenges, organizations safeguard the well-being of a critical workforce demographic while aligning with broader societal goals, ensuring a healthier, more sustainable workforce for the future.

In this regard, investigating age differences in how RESE-NE shapes perceptions of social drivers of inclusive workplaces and protects against interpersonal strain is particularly pertinent, as emotional regulation tends to improve with age. This improvement arises from the development of refined, context-specific, and resource-efficient strategies, alongside an age-related positivity bias that emphasizes the positive aspects of situations and relationships (Reed and Carstensen 2012; Dahling and Perez 2010; Mikkelsen et al. 2024). Consequently, older employees demonstrate greater consistency in emotional regulation, reducing negative responses and fostering effective interpersonal interactions (Burr et al. 2021; Elkjær et al. 2022). The positivity bias associated with aging further enhances favorable perceptions of colleagues, supervisors, and top management, promoting psychological well-being (Luong et al. 2018; Carstensen and DeLiema 2018). These perceptions cultivate a sense of belonging and emotional security, serving as protective factors against interpersonal strain (Behnke et al. 2022; De Simone et al. 2021; Santarpia et al. 2024b). While inclusive workplace perceptions benefit all employees, their relative importance may differ across age groups due to variations in career priorities and socioemotional goals.

Despite their proximity in age, middle-aged and senior employees differ significantly in career stages, motivations, and expectations. Middle-aged employees, focused on growth-oriented goals such as career advancement, often view inclusivity as a pathway to professional development and validation (Carreri et al. 2024). Conversely, senior employees, driven by socioemotional motives, prioritize meaningful interactions that support emotional well-being (Fasbender et al. 2020), experiencing greater life satisfaction than their middle-aged counterparts (Hansen et al. 2018). These differences align with the notion that as individuals age, they prioritize emotionally meaningful goals while minimizing negative experiences (Carstensen 1993, 2021; Reed and Carstensen 2012; Ng and Feldman 2010). Research further supports that older employees experience lower psychological need frustration and maintain emotional equilibrium through strategies that emphasize positive experiences and foster harmony (Scheibe et al. 2021; Scheibe and Zacher 2013). This motivational shift likely explains why senior employees could derive inclusion primarily from colleagues, placing less emphasis on supervisors or top management, whose actions may feel less relevant to their immediate well-being (Carstensen et al. 1999; Luong et al. 2018). Conversely, middle-aged employees, navigating career peaks and balancing responsibilities, rely on inclusive supervisors and top management for professional growth, direction, and validation, while also depending on peer support for emotional resilience (De Simone et al. 2021). Inclusive top management plays a particularly significant role for middle-aged employees, offering direction, fairness, and recognition aligned with their career-focused motivations. Supervisors also serve a dual role for this group, providing both emotional support and opportunities for growth and acknowledgment (De Simone et al. 2021). In contrast, senior employees, having typically established their career identities, rely more heavily on peer support to alleviate interpersonal strain, reflecting a preference for harmonious social interactions over hierarchical validation (Cordeiro et al. 2024; Fasbender et al. 2020; Shavit et al. 2023). While inclusive supervisors and top management remain relevant, their actions may carry less weight for senior employees if perceived as misaligned with their career stage or insufficiently addressing their specific needs. Senior employees might also interpret inclusive initiatives from top management differently, particularly if these efforts target younger workers or focus on emerging workplace trends, fostering feelings of marginalization or an “us versus them” mentality (Oliveira and Cabral-Cardoso 2018). Senior employees might perceive lower inclusion from top management and supervisors due to age discrimination, which limits their access to promotions, training, and career-enhancing initiatives, making organizational efforts toward professional growth feel irrelevant to them (Swift et al. 2017; Van Der Heijden 2006; von Humboldt et al. 2023). They also have fewer resources and receive less supervisor attention for career development, contrasting with their socioemotional priorities of meaningful interactions (Van Der Heijden 2006; von Humboldt et al. 2023). Supervisors and top management’s prioritization of younger employees can also generate perceptions of undervaluation, as seniors often view their contributions as overlooked and their growth potential disregarded (Van Der Heijden 2006; von Humboldt et al. 2023). Thus, senior workers might be less likely to perceive top management and supervisors as inclusive, viewing their efforts as misaligned with the distinct priorities of their career stage.

Middle-aged employees, in contrast, might be more likely to interpret such initiatives as opportunities for professional inclusion, highlighting the differential relevance of social drivers across career stages (Oliveira and Cabral-Cardoso 2018). We hypothesize age-related differences in the mediating effects of the three social drivers of inclusive workplaces on the relationship between RESE-NE and interpersonal strain. Specifically, senior employees are expected to derive greater benefits from inclusive peer relationships, consistent with their socioemotional goals and preference for harmonious interactions. Conversely, middle-aged employees are anticipated to prioritize the inclusivity of supervisors and top management, reflecting their career-focused aspirations and need for professional recognition. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4.

Age-related differences will exist in how the three social drivers mediate the relationship between RESE-NE and interpersonal strain at work. Senior employees will benefit primarily from inclusive colleagues, whereas middle-aged employees will value inclusivity across colleagues, supervisors, and top management.

2. Materials and Methods

This study utilized a cross-sectional research design, which was well suited for examining associations among key variables at a specific point in time and for comparing perceptions across different age groups. This approach was particularly relevant given the organizational interest in understanding generational differences in workplace inclusion and perceived emotional regulation. In order to ensure that the design was congruent with the theoretical framework and hypotheses underpinning this study, the formulation of our research design was guided by the following research questions: (a) How is RESE-NE associated with employees’ perceptions of social drivers of inclusive workplaces (i.e., colleagues, supervisors, top management)? (b) To what extent are perceptions of inclusive workplace social drivers associated with interpersonal strain at work? (c) Do inclusive social drivers mediate the relationship between RESE-NE and interpersonal strain? (d) Do age-related differences exist in the mediation pathways between RESE-NE, inclusive social drivers, and interpersonal strain? These research questions informed the study’s hypotheses, guided the analytic approach, and justified the use of a cross-sectional design to capture meaningful patterns in perceptions and relationships within a specific organizational context. This research was part of a diversity management intervention assessment mandated by the management of a major Italian telecommunications company. Online questionnaires were administered via the Intranet. This study focused on employees aged 44 and above, as the primary interest was in middle-aged and senior employees. The organization was notable for having a workforce predominantly composed of individuals within these age ranges. Employees who voluntarily agreed to engage in this study were reassured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses to reduce their social desirability concerns. The survey, taking approximately 20 min to complete, was conducted between July 2022 and March 2024. In total, we contacted 6000 employees. Of them, 1222 employees completed the survey (20.3% response rate). After excluding 154 cases identified as multivariate outliers, the final sample comprised 1068 respondents. Participants who volunteered to participation were briefed on the research objectives and guaranteed the confidentiality of their answers. The sample was quite well balanced in reference to gender (women: 54.2%). Participants had an average age of 53.42 years (SD = 4.39, min = 44, mx = 65). Most respondents had at least 21 years of experience in the current job (93.0%), a high-school degree (65.2%), and offspring (one child: 26.1%, two children: 40.4%). The majority was employed full-time (90.20%).

2.1. Measurements

Regulatory emotional self-efficacy beliefs at work were assessed using four items from the Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy (RESE) scale, adapted for organizational contexts as developed by Alessandri et al. (2015). Participants rated their confidence in managing negative events at work (e.g., “keeping calm during stressful situations and job-related frustrations”) on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Social drivers of inclusive workplaces were measured using the 28-item scale in its Italian validation (Santarpia et al. 2024b). This scale comprises three dimensions: (a) inclusive colleagues which assess inclusive behaviors among colleagues, emphasizing the appreciation and integration of diversities within the workgroup (9 items, e.g., among colleagues, we recognize the value that each one adds to shared results); (b) inclusive supervisors which gauges the extent to which supervisors treat all collaborators impartially, value their individuality, and actively promote the integration of their differences (10 items, e.g., my supervisor treats all employees equally, taking into account the unique characteristics and needs of each one); and (c) inclusive top management, which evaluates the degree to which top management ensures equitable treatment of all employees, implementing measures and actions to foster workplace inclusion (9 items, e.g., the top management treats all categories of employees equally). Participants expressed their level of agreement with each statement concerning the inclusive behaviors exhibited by these three social actors, using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Interpersonal strain was evaluated using the six-item Interpersonal Strain Scale by Borgogni et al. (2012). Participants indicated the frequency with which they engage in various behaviors to distance themselves from others at work (e.g., I felt more comfortable keeping my distance from others) on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = never, 7 = daily).

2.2. Data Analysis

Initially, SPSS 25 was utilized to assess data normality, identify outliers, check for multicollinearity, and compute correlations. The absence of multicollinearity was confirmed, as indicated by variance inflation factors (highest value of 0.88) and tolerance statistics (lowest value of 1.13) that were below the cut-off point of 10; there was no sign of multicollinearity (Maffoni et al. 2022). A total of 154 multivariate outliers were detected through Mahalanobis distance scores and subsequently removed. Skewness and kurtosis indices indicated an approximately normal distribution of the study’s variables (values ranging from −0.53 to 1.68 for skewness and values ranging from −0.51 to 2.92 for kurtosis). Subsequently, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) using the maximum likelihood (ML) method in Mplus Version 8 (Muthén and Muthén 2017) were conducted. The measurement model was compared with various competing models. Once a good fit for the measurement model was established, a parallel mediation model was tested using bias-corrected bootstrapping analyses with 1000 random samples. Indirect effects were considered significant when the 95% confidence interval from the bootstrap analysis did not include zero, and the p-value was less than or equal to 0.05. Model fits were assessed using traditional approximate fit indices, namely the Root Means Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), in addition to two incremental fit indices, namely the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI; Sommovigo et al. 2018). To investigate age-related differences in the proposed relationships, a multi-group analysis (MGA) was conducted, comparing two age-based subgroups: employees aged 44–54 and those aged 55 and older. This cut-off was selected based on prior research in the fields of aging and employment, aiming to highlight potential distinctions between middle-aged and senior workers (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work 2016).

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Analyses

All items exhibited factor loadings on their respective constructs exceeding 0.50, indicating at least a medium correlation with the relevant construct (RESE-NE: 0.79–0.84, inclusive colleagues: 0.51–0.84, inclusive supervisors: 0.79–0.86, inclusive top management: 0.82–0.90, interpersonal strain: 0.70–0.81). Composite reliability coefficients for the variables in this study ranged from 0.89 to 0.97, AVE values ranged from 0.57 to 0.74, ω values ranged from 0.84 to 0.96, and Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.83 to 0.96. The results of the correlation analysis aligned with our expectations (see

Table 1. Intercorrelations and descriptive statistics among study variables.

Variable	M	SD	CR	AVE	ω	Skew.	Kur.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. RESE-NE	4.85	1.05	0.89	0.67	0.84	0.13	−0.51	0.83
2. iCOLL	5.12	1.08	0.93	0.61	0.92	−0.53	0.20	0.28 **a	0.91
3. iSUP	4.80	1.37	0.97	0.74	0.96	−0.52	−0.21	0.21 **a	0.78 **a	0.96
4. iTM	4.50	1.23	0.94	0.64	0.93	−0.28	−0.20	0.23 **a	0.67 **a	0.73 **a	0.93
5. Strain	0.85	0.91	0.89	0.57	0.85	1.68	2.92	−0.29 **a	−0.42 **a	−0.33 **a	−0.33 **a	0.85
6. Sex	-	-	-		-	−0.34	−0.11	−0.11 **b	−0.08 **b	−0.09 *b	−0.08 **b	−0.02 b	-
7. Age	53.42	4.39	-		-	-	-	0.06 c	0.01 c	−0.01 c	−0.00 c	0.03 c	−0.09 *b	-
8. Ten.	-	-	-		-	-	-	−0.02 c	−0.03 c	−0.04 c	−0.05 *c	0.04 c	−0.06 *b	0.50 **b	-
9. Educ.	-	-	-		-	-	-	0.04 c	0.05 *c	−0.00 c	0.02 c	0.00 c	0.09 **b	−0.05 *b	−0.26 **b	-
10. Child.	-	-	-		-	-	-	−0.02 c	−0.06 **c	−0.04 c	−0.03 c	0.05 *c	−0.01 b	−0.00 b	−0.00 b	−0.05 b
11. Contr.	-	-	-		-	-	-	−0.09 **b	−0.00 b	−0.00 b	−0.03 b	−0.00 b	0.18 *d	−13 **b	−0.06 b	−0.13 **b	−0.06 *b

Notes. Boldfaced numbers on the diagonal represent Cronbach’s alpha; RESE-NE = regulatory self-efficacy in negative emotions; iCOLL = inclusive colleagues; iSUP = inclusive supervisors; iTM = inclusive top management; Strain = interpersonal strain; Sex = biological sex: 0 = male, 1 = female; Age: in years; Ten. = job tenure: 1 = <5 years, 2 = 6–10 years, 3 = 11–20 years, 4 = 21–30 years, 5 = >30 years; Educ. = educational level: 1 = middle school diploma, 2 = high school diploma, 3 = Bachelor’s degree, 4 = Master’s degree, 5 = post-degree qualifications; Child. = number of children: 0 = no child, 1 = 1 child, 2 = 2 children, 3 = 3 children, 4 = more than 3 children; Contr. = type of contract: 0 = full-time, 1 = part-time; M = means; SD = standard deviations CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; ω = omega; Skew. = skewness; Kur. = kurtosis. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. a = Pearson’s correlation coefficients; b = Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients; c = Kendall’s coefficients of rank correlation tau-subb; d = v Cramer’s coefficients.

).

3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Assessment of Common Method Bias

The fit indices for the expected five-factor model were considered very satisfactory (χ² = 2148.68, df = 655, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.03). This model displayed superior fit indices when compared to alternative models (see

Table 2. Results of expected CFA and alternative models.

Model	χ2	df	p	RMSEA	RMSEA [90%CI]	SRMR	CFI	TLI
5-factor model i	1633.83	617	0.00	0.04	[0.03, 0.04]	0.03	0.97	0.96
5-factor model h	2148.68	655	0.00	0.05	[0.04, 0.05]	0.03	0.95	0.94
5-factor model g	2208.23	659	0.00	0.05	[0.04, 0.05]	0.03	0.95	0.94
4-factor model f	4242.45	659	0.00	0.07	[0.07, 0.07]	0.05	0.88	0.87
3-factor model e	5539.82	662	0.00	0.08	[0.08, 0.08]	0.06	0.83	0.82
2-factor model d	6904.54	664	0.00	0.09	[0.09, 0.10]	0.07	0.79	0.77
2-factor model c	6957.45	664	0.00	0.09	[0.09, 0.10]	0.08	0.78	0.77
2-factor model b	7373.30	664	0.00	0.10	[0.09, 0.10]	0.08	0.77	0.76
1-factor model a	8936.64	665	0.00	0.11	[0.10, 0.11]	0.09	0.72	0.70

Note. df = degree of freedom; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index. ^a All indicators load on a single factor. ^b Inclusive management and inclusive supervisors load on the first factor, RESE-NE, inclusive colleagues, and interpersonal strain load on the second factor. ^c Inclusive colleagues and management load on the first factor, RESE-NE, inclusive supervisors, and interpersonal strain load on the second factor. ^d Inclusive colleagues, supervisors, and management load on the first factor, RESE-NE, and interpersonal strain load on the second factor. ^e Inclusive colleagues, supervisors, and management load on the first factor, RESE-NE loads on the second factor, and interpersonal strain load on the third factor. ^f Inclusive supervisors and top management load on the first factor, RESE-NE loads on the second factor, interpersonal strain load on the third factor, and inclusive colleagues load on the fourth factor. ^g RESE-NE, inclusive colleagues, supervisors, top management, and interpersonal strain load on distinct factors. Inclusive colleagues, supervisors, and top management load also on a second-order factor. ^h RESE-NE, inclusive colleagues, supervisors, top management, and interpersonal strain load on distinct factors. ⁱ Previous model with the inclusion of a common method latent variable on which all items are loaded.

), supporting the discriminant validity of our scales. Harmans’ single-factor test revealed that the first factor of the unrotated principal component factor analysis explained 43.07% of the overall variance, indicating the absence of a general factor. Moreover, the hypothesized five-factor model exhibited improved fit after introducing an unmeasured latent method factor (χ² = 1633.83, df = 655, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.03). The unmeasured latent method factor accounted for 2.94% of the total variance, which falls below the 25% threshold, the average amount of method variance observed in self-report research (Podsakoff et al. 2012). This result suggested that common method variance was unlikely to confound the interpretation of our results.

3.3. Mediation Analyses

The results of our mediation model (χ² = 2356.11, df = 764, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.04, 90%RMSEA [0.04, 0.05], SRMR = 0.04; see

Table 3. Standardized path coefficients of mediation model controlling for covariates.

χ2	df	p	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	TLI
2356.11	764	0.000	0.04 [0.04, 0.05]	0.03	0.95	0.94
Effects				B	S.E.	95%CI
RESE-NE → SDWI				0.29 ***	0.04	[0.21, 0.36]
SDWI → Interpersonal strain				−0.40 ***	0.03	[−0.46, −0.33]
RESE-NE → Interpersonal strain				−0.21 ***	0.04	[−0.28, −0.13]
Gender → RESE-NE				−0.12 ***	0.03	[−0.19, −0.06]
Age → RESE-NE				0.02	0.04	[−0.06, 0.10]
Tenure → RESE-NE				−0.04	0.04	[−0.12, 0.02]
Gender → SDWI				−0.08 *	0.03	[−0.13, −0.01]
Age → SDWI				0.02	0.04	[−0.05, 0.10]
Tenure → SDWI				−0.05	0.04	[−0.13, 0.03]
Gender → Interpersonal strain				−0.08 *	0.03	[−0.14, −0.03]
Age → Interpersonal strain				−0.00	0.03	[−0.07, 0.06]
Tenure → Interpersonal strain				0.00	0.03	[−0.07, 0.07]
RESE-NE → SDWI → Interpersonal strain				−0.12 ***	0.02	[−0.16, −0.09]
Total effects				−0.32 ***	0.04	[−0.40, −0.25]

Note. df = degree of freedom; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; S.E. = standard error; 95%CI = 95% confidence interval; RESE-NE = regulatory emotional self-efficacy in handling negative emotions at work. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

and Figure 1) indicated that RESE-NE was positively associated with social drivers of inclusive workplaces (β = 0.29, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, 95%CI [0.21, 0.36]) while negatively related to interpersonal strain at work (β = −0.21, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, 95%CI [−0.28, −0.13]). Social drivers of inclusive workplaces, in turn, were negatively related to interpersonal strain at work (β = −0.40, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, 95%CI [−0.46, −0.33]). Social drivers of inclusive workplaces mediated the association between RESE-NE and interpersonal strain at work (β = −0.12, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001, 95%CI [−0.16, −0.09]). Among covariates, being a woman was negatively associated with RESE-NE (β = −0.12, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, 95%CI [−0.19, −0.06]), social drivers of inclusive workplaces (β = −0.08, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, 95%CI [−0.13, −0.01]), and interpersonal strain (β = −0.07, SE = 0.03, p < 0.05, 95%CI [−0.14, −0.02]). Overall, these results suggest that employees with high RESE-NE are more likely to experience inclusive social actors in their workplaces, which, in turn, makes them less vulnerable to developing interpersonal strain at work.

The results of the expected model remained invariant when the covariates were excluded (χ² = 2208.23, df = 659, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05, 90%RMSEA [0.04, 0.05], SRMR = 0.04), maintaining a significant indirect effect of social drivers in the link between RESE-NE and interpersonal strain (β = −0.12, p < 0.001). Next, we conducted a parallel mediation model analyzing the effects of the single components of social drivers, allowing them to correlate with each other. This model was satisfactory (χ² = 2288.90, df = 754, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.04, 90%RMSEA [0.04, 0.05], SRMR = 0.03; see

Table 4. Standardized path coefficients of parallel mediation model controlling for covariates.

χ2	df	p	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	TLI
2288.90	754	0.000	0.04 [0.04, 0.05]	0.03	0.95	0.94
Effects				B	S.E.	95%CI
RESE-NE → Inclusive colleagues				0.31 ***	0.04	[0.22, 0.40]
RESE-NE → Inclusive supervisors				0.22 ***	0.04	[0.13, 0.33]
RESE-NE → Inclusive top management				0.25 ***	0.04	[0.15, 0.34]
Inclusive colleagues → Interpersonal strain				−0.50 ***	0.08	[−0.66, −0.32]
Inclusive supervisors → Interpersonal strain				0.16 *	0.07	[−0.01, 0.33]
Inclusive top management → Interpersonal strain				−0.09	0.06	[−0.24, 0.03]
RESE-NE → Interpersonal strain				−0.18 ***	0.04	[−0.28, −0.09]
Gender → RESE-NE				−0.12 ***	0.03	[−0.22, −0.08]
Age → RESE-NE				0.02	0.04	[−0.07, 0.12]
Tenure → RESE-NE				−0.04	0.04	[−0.14, 0.05]
Gender → Inclusive colleagues				−0.04	0.03	[−0.12, 0.03]
Age → Inclusive colleagues				0.05	0.04	[−0.05, 0.15]
Tenure → Inclusive colleagues				−0.06	0.04	[−0.09, 0.07]
Gender → Inclusive supervisors				−0.08 *	0.03	[−0.16, −0.04]
Age → Inclusive supervisors				−0.01	0.04	[−0.12, 0.09]
Tenure → Inclusive supervisors				−0.03	0.04	[−0.13, 0.07]
Gender → Inclusive top management				−0.06 *	0.03	[−0.14, 0.02]
Age → Inclusive top management				0.01	0.04	[−0.09, 0.11]
Tenure → Inclusive top management				−0.05	0.04	[−0.16, 0.06]
Gender → Interpersonal strain				−0.06 *	0.03	[−0.14, 0.01]
Age → Interpersonal strain				0.01	0.04	[−0.07, 0.10]
Tenure → Interpersonal strain				−0.01	0.03	[−0.09, 0.07]
RESE-NE → Inclusive colleagues → Interpersonal strain				−0.16 ***	0.03	[−0.23, −0.09]
RESE-NE → Inclusive supervisors → Interpersonal strain				0.04 *	0.02	[−0.01, 0.09]
RESE-NE → Inclusive top management → Interpersonal strain				−0.02	0.01	[−0.06, 0.01]
Total indirect effects				−0.14 ***	0.02	[−0.19, −0.10]
Total effects				−0.32 ***	0.04	[−0.42, −0.24]

Note. df = degree of freedom; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; S.E. = standard error; 95%CI = 95% confidence interval; RESE-NE = regulatory emotional self-efficacy in handling negative emotions at work. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

).

RESE-NE was positively related to inclusive colleagues (β = 0.31, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, 95%CI [0.25, 0.38]), inclusive supervisors (β = 0.22, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, 95%CI [0.16, 0.30]), and inclusive top management (β = 0.25, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, 95%CI [0.18, 0.32]). Inclusive colleagues (β = −0.50, SE = 0.07, p < 0.01, 95%CI [−0.61, −0.35]) but not inclusive supervisors (β = 0.16, SE = 0.07, ns, 95%CI [−0.01, 0.26]) or inclusive top management (β = −0.09, SE = 0.06, ns, 95%CI [−0.20, 0.01]) were statistically significantly and negatively related to interpersonal strain. Among social drivers of inclusive workplaces, perceptions of inclusive workplaces were the only ones to mediate the association between RESE-NE and interpersonal strain (β = −0.15, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001, 95%CI [−0.21, −0.11]). The indirect effect was negative, suggesting that employees with high RESE-NE were more likely to perceive their colleagues as inclusive, which, in turn, made them less likely to experience interpersonal strain. Among covariates, being a woman was negatively related to self-efficacy (β = −0.12, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, 95%CI [−0.20, −0.07]), inclusive supervisors (β = −0.08, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, 95%CI [−0.20, −0.07]), inclusive top management (β = −0.06, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001, 95%CI [−0.20, −0.07]), and interpersonal strain (β = −0.06, SE = 0.03, p < 0.05, 95%CI [−0.12, −0.04]).

3.4. Multi-Group Analyses

The results of MGA (χ² = 605.70, df = 340, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.04, 90%RMSEA [0.04, 0.05], SRMR = 0.04; see Figure 2 and

Table 5. Results of multi-group parallel mediation analyses based on age groups.

χ2	df	p	RMSEA	RMSEA 90%CI	SRMR	CFI	TLI
3281.31	1508	0.00	0.05	[0.04, 0.05]	0.04	0.94	0.94
		44–54 years (n = 611)			55–65 years (n = 457)
Effects		B	S.E.	95%CI	B	S.E.	95%CI
RESE-NE → ICol		0.33 ***	0.05	[0.24, 0.43]	0.28 ***	0.05	[0.18, 0.39]
RESE-NE → ISup		0.26 ***	0.05	[0.16, 0.35]	0.17 **	0.05	[0.06, 0.27]
RESE-NE → ITop		0.30 ***	0.05	[0.20, 0.38]	0.18 **	0.06	[0.07, 0.29]
ICol → ISW		−0.47 ***	0.08	[−0.62, −0.31]	−0.58 ***	0.11	[−0.83, −0.37]
ISup → ISW		0.16	0.09	[−0.01, 0.35]	0.18	0.10	[−0.01, 0.39]
ITop → ISW		−0.17 *	0.08	[−0.35, −0.03]	0.03	0.08	[−0.13, 0.17]
RESE-NE → ISW		−0.15 **	0.05	[−0.24, −0.05]	−0.22 ***	0.06	[−0.34, −0.09]
Gender → RESE-NE		−0.13 **	0.05	[−0.22, −0.04]	−0.09	0.05	[−0.20, −0.01]
Tenure → RESE-NE		−0.06	0.04	[−0.16, 0.01]	−0.00	0.06	[−0.13, 0.12]
Gender → ICol		−0.07	0.04	[−0.15, 0.03]	−0.00	0.05	[−0.10, 0.09]
Tenure → ICol		−0.03	0.04	[−0.11, 0.04]	−0.06	0.06	[−0.16, 0.07]
Gender → ISup		−0.12 **	0.04	[−0.20, −0.04]	−0.02	0.05	[−0.11, 0.07]
Tenure → ISup		−0.01	0.04	[−0.08, 0.08]	−0.07	0.06	[−0.15, 0.06]
Gender → ITop		−0.11 **	0.04	[−0.20, −0.04]	0.01	0.05	[−0.07, 0.11]
Tenure → ITop		−0.00	0.04	[−0.08, 0.08]	−0.12	0.07	[−0.21, 0.03]
Gender → ISW		−0.05	0.04	[−0.13, 0.02]	−0.09 *	0.04	[−0.17, −0.01]
Tenure → ISW		−0.03	0.03	[−0.10, 0.03]	0.05	0.06	[−0.09, 0.14]
RESE-NE → ICol → ISW		−0.15 ***	0.03	[−0.23.−0.10]	−0.16 ***	0.05	[−0.28, −0.09]
RESE-NE → ISup → ISW		0.04	0.02	[−0.01, 0.10]	0.03	0.02	[0.00, 0.09]
RESE-NE → ITop → ISW		−0.05 *	0.02	[−0.11, −0.01]	0.00	0.01	[−0.02, 0.03]
Total indirect effects		−0.16 ***	0.03	[−0.22, −0.11]	−0.13 ***	0.03	[−0.20, −0.08]
Total effects		−0.31 ***	0.05	[−0.40, −0.22]	−0.35 ***	0.06	[−0.46, −0.22]

Note. df = degree of freedom; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; S.E. = standard error; 95%CI = 95% confidence interval; RESE-NE = regulatory emotional self-efficacy in handling negative emotions at work; iCol = inclusive colleagues; iSup = inclusive supervisors; iTop = inclusive top management; ISW = interpersonal strain at work. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

) indicated that for all employees RESE-NE was, regardless of their age group, positively related to perceptions of inclusive colleagues (employees aged between 44 and 54 years: β = 0.37, SE = 0.05, p < 0.001, 95%CI [0.27, 0.48]; employees aged over 50 years: β = 0.29, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001, 95%CI [0.16, 0.40]), inclusive supervisors (employees aged between 44 and 54 years: β = 0.40, SE = 0.07, p < 0.001, 95%CI [0.26, 0.56]; employees aged over 50 years: β = 0.28, SE = 0.08, p < 0.01, 95%CI [0.12, 0.44]), and inclusive top management (employees aged between 44 and 54 years: β = 0.41, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001, 95%CI [0.29, 0.54]; employees aged over 50 years: β = 0.28, SE = 0.08, p < 0.01, 95%CI [0.09, 0.38]). In the group aged above 50 years, perceptions of inclusive colleagues were negatively and statistically significantly related to interpersonal strain (employees aged between 44 and 54 years: β = −0.39, SE = 0.07, p < 0.001, 95%CI [−0.54, −0.25]; employees aged over 50 years: β = −0.42, SE = 0.11, p < 0.001, 95%CI [−0.66, −0.22]). In the group aged between 44 and 54 years, inclusive colleagues mediated the relationship between RESE-NE and interpersonal strain (β = −0.12, SE = 0.04, p < 0.01, 95%CI [−0.22, −0.06]), suggesting that employees who believed they could effectively manage their negative emotions were more likely to perceive inclusive colleagues, which, in turn, made them less vulnerable to interpersonal strain. Additionally, in the group above 54 years old, inclusive colleagues negatively mediated the relationship between RESE-NE and interpersonal strain (β = −0.12, SE = 0.04, p < 0.01, 95%CI [−0.22, −0.06]), while inclusive supervisors had a positive indirect effect (β = 0.05, SE = 0.04, p < 0.05, 95%CI [0.01, 0.10]), suggesting that while the perceptions of inclusive colleagues made them less likely to report interpersonal strain, those of inclusive supervisors had the opposite effect, resulting in higher levels of self-reported interpersonal strain.

4. Discussion

This study makes a significant advancement in the literature on diversity and inclusion, burnout, and individual differences by being the first to identify RESE-NE as a crucial personal resource that protects against interpersonal strain. It achieves this by fostering more positive perceptions of social drivers of inclusive workplaces. Importantly, this relationship is not uniform across all age groups: The relevance of social drivers in mediating this link varies as a function of age. Specifically, the findings reveal that while inclusive colleagues consistently mediate the relationship between RESE-NE and interpersonal strain across all age groups, inclusive top management serves as a mediator uniquely for employees aged 45–54. This nuanced insight underscores the critical need to consider age-specific dynamics when designing workplace interventions aimed at reducing interpersonal strain and promoting inclusion. For middle-aged employees, inclusive top management plays a particularly significant role, while, for senior employees (above 55), peer relationships hold greater importance over hierarchical ones. This distinction highlights organizations’ need to adopt a targeted, age-sensitive approach to workplace inclusion. Such an approach involves fostering inclusive behaviors across all key organizational actors while tailoring initiatives to align with the evolving needs and expectations of different age groups. By strategically leveraging RESE-NE and promoting age-sensitive inclusive behaviors at key organizational levels, organizations can foster more inclusive work environments that effectively reduce interpersonal strain across the workforce lifespan.

4.1. Theoretical Implications

This study offers novel theoretical implications. First, it extends the body of evidence on the protective role of RESE-NE in protecting against adverse health outcomes (Sommovigo et al. 2023b), showing that individuals with high RESE-NE are less vulnerable to interpersonal strain as they tend to interpret social interactions more favorably (Bandura 1997, 2023; Nieuwkerk 2022). Furthermore, this research complements findings by Santarpia et al. (2024a), who identified an indirect link between social self-efficacy and reduced interpersonal strain via diminished emotional impairment. By emphasizing the protective role of domain-specific self-efficacy (i.e., RESE-NE), this study advances our understanding of personal resources that safeguard individuals from interpersonal strain.

Second, the finding that employees with high RESE-NE perceive colleagues, supervisors, and top management as more inclusive represents a significant advancement in workplace inclusion research. By emphasizing RESE-NE as a critical internal factor, this study broadens the understanding of inclusion, which has traditionally focused on external influences such as organizational culture, leadership practices, and diversity initiatives (Mor Barak 2017; Shore et al. 2011). RESE-NE, as an internal psychological resource, equips individuals with sophisticated emotional regulation capabilities and a constructive cognitive approach (Bandura 1997, 2023; Nieuwkerk 2022). These attributes enable employees to interpret social cues positively and adapt effectively to diverse workplace dynamics (Schickel et al. 2023). This socio-cognitive perspective shifts the discourse toward employee agency, suggesting that individuals with high RESE-NE actively shape their perceptions of inclusion by leveraging emotional regulation to navigate and constructively interpret social interactions (Nieuwkerk 2022; Zhu et al. 2019). This study further aligns with evidence linking emotional regulation to prosocial behaviors, collaboration, and workplace adaptability (Alessandri et al. 2023; Consiglio et al. 2016), underscoring the potential for RESE-NE to reinforce inclusive environments at all organizational levels. By integrating RESE-NE into theoretical frameworks of workplace inclusion, this research not only extends Social Cognitive Theory but also offers practical implications. Interventions targeting the enhancement of RESE-NE could complement organizational strategies aimed at fostering inclusion, thereby improving employee well-being and adaptive functioning (Rajendran et al. 2020; Sommovigo et al. 2023b). Ultimately, this study pioneers the identification of RESE-NE as a personal resource that fosters favorable perceptions of social drivers in inclusive workplaces, contributing a novel and impactful dimension to the inclusion literature.

Third, this study significantly advances the workplace inclusion literature by identifying perceptions of social drivers as a key psychological mechanism linking high RESE-NE to reduced interpersonal strain at work. Employees with high RESE-NE demonstrate a superior capacity to manage emotionally charged interpersonal events while fostering meaningful workplace relationships that enhance inclusivity (Beard et al. 2019; Consiglio et al. 2016). The findings underscore the importance of a dual approach: promoting RESE-NE among employees and cultivating inclusive behaviors across organizational systems (Shore et al. 2018; Mor Barak 2017). This integrated strategy offers a comprehensive framework for preventing interpersonal strain by aligning individual emotional regulation with systemic inclusivity. Additionally, this study highlights the distinct outcomes of inclusion at various organizational levels, emphasizing the need for tailored interventions that address the specific dynamics of colleagues, supervisors, and top management. Notably, inclusive colleagues emerged as the most influential social driver in reducing interpersonal strain across all age groups. This prominence likely reflects the immediacy and frequency of peer interactions, which are central to daily experiences, being often more immediate, reciprocal, and personal than those with supervisors or top management. Inclusive colleagues foster a supportive environment where employees feel valued and secure in expressing their authentic selves, enabling them to leverage their emotional regulation skills to prevent interpersonal strain reactions (Shore et al. 2018; Gerich and Weber 2020). These relationships promote a strong sense of belonging, diminishing the risk of interpersonal strain (Schickel et al. 2023; Shore and Chung 2022). By underscoring the critical role of inclusive colleagues in converting perceived emotional regulation into reduced interpersonal strain, this study provides valuable insights into the proximal organizational relationships that enable the full benefits of emotional regulation to manifest.

Fourth, this study reveals critical age-related differences in how social drivers of inclusive workplaces mediate the relationship between RESE-NE and interpersonal strain, challenging one-size-fits-all approaches to diversity and inclusion. It underscores the importance of age-specific strategies for fostering workplace inclusion and supporting a diverse workforce. Specifically, for employees aged 45–54, inclusive colleagues and top management emerge as key mediators, reflecting the career stage’s focus on upward mobility and leadership proximity. Inclusive top management provides direction, recognition, and a sense of fairness, which align with the career-oriented priorities of middle-aged employees (De Simone et al. 2021). The lack of a mediating effect by inclusive supervisors on the relationship between RESE-NE and interpersonal strain could stem from middle-aged employees’ emphasis on horizontal and organizational-level dynamics—such as relationships with peers and top management—over vertical, hierarchical interactions with supervisors. Inclusive top management might better address the strategic and career-oriented priorities of middle-aged employees, while inclusive colleagues might provide the immediate social and emotional support essential in preventing interpersonal strain. In contrast, supervisors are typically viewed as task-focused figures, which might limit their role in addressing the sources of interpersonal strain relevant to this age group.

Conversely, for employees aged 55 and above, only inclusive colleagues mediate the link between RESE-NE and reduced interpersonal strain. This shift reflects the socioemotional priorities of senior employees, who value meaningful peer relationships over hierarchical validation as they navigate age-related challenges and interpersonal dynamics (Carstensen 2021; Fasbender et al. 2020). Inclusive colleagues provide the shared experiences and emotional support essential for reducing strain, while supervisors and top management play a less significant role. Supervisors, as representatives of the organizational hierarchy, become less central to their sense of inclusion and interpersonal well-being as employees age (Carstensen 2021; Fasbender et al. 2020). Moreover, senior employees may perceive corporate inclusivity initiatives, often led or endorsed by supervisors, as favoring younger workers (Oliveira and Cabral-Cardoso 2018), leading to mistrust or disengagement with supervisor inclusivity efforts (Oliveira and Cabral-Cardoso 2018). These findings highlight the evolving sources of inclusion across career stages. For middle-aged employees, inclusivity from top management complements peer support, addressing both strategic and emotional needs. In contrast, older employees rely primarily on peer relationships for belonging and emotional security, minimizing the role of organizational hierarchy in their well-being (Shore et al. 2018; Santarpia et al. 2024b). Tailored, age-specific workplace interventions are essential to ensure inclusive initiatives effectively address the unique priorities and dynamics of diverse age groups, maintaining employee well-being across the lifespan.

4.2. Limitations and Future Research Directions

The interpretations of this study’s findings must consider its limitations. The cross-sectional design precludes causal inference. Additionally, reliance solely on self-reported measures introduces limitations such as social desirability bias and common method variance. Nevertheless, adhering to recommendations from methodological experts (Podsakoff et al. 2012), we controlled for common method bias and concluded its significance as an issue in our study to be remote. In subsequent research, integrating self-reports with other-reports and objective data using longitudinal designs is essential. We also theoretically assumed that RESE-NE would facilitate more favorable social drivers of inclusive workplaces by eliciting cognitive positivity bias and fostering positive responsiveness dynamics. However, we did not investigate the perceptual and social exchange mechanisms among organizational members that could contribute to this tendency. Moreover, our data collection was limited to a single Italian organization, restricting the generalizability of our findings. To address this, future studies could include diverse samples from various organizations and socio-cultural backgrounds. A multi-level approach would be strongly recommended in the future to examine whether and how top management’s inclusive behaviors influence those of supervisors, subsequently impacting team members’ actions and outcomes. Integrating top-down and bottom-up approaches can provide comprehensive insights into the effect of inclusive behaviors at different organizational levels. A further limitation of this study pertains to the voluntary nature of participation, which may have introduced non-response bias due to the relatively low response rate of 20.3%. It is likely that employees who opted to participate held more favorable perceptions of their workplace and its social dynamics—such as having more inclusive colleagues, supportive supervisors, or positive views of top management—making them more inclined to share their experiences. In contrast, individuals experiencing higher levels of interpersonal strain or those with less favorable views of their work environment may have been underrepresented, either due to reluctance to engage in this study or prior attrition from the organization. This potential bias, often referred to as the “healthy worker effect”, may have resulted in an underestimation of interpersonal strain and an overrepresentation of positive workplace perceptions (Sommovigo et al. 2022). Future research could address this limitation by implementing strategies to enhance response rates, such as providing modest incentives, and by comparing the characteristics of respondents with broader organizational data whenever possible. Additionally, our multi-group analyses centered on comparing middle-aged and senior employees, as these demographics have been identified as particularly vulnerable to depersonalization in recent years (O’Connor et al. 2018). Addressing this critical challenge is imperative, given that their well-being underpins organizational stability and success, as they frequently occupy pivotal leadership and mentorship roles (Hedge et al. 2006; Ng and Feldman 2010). Future research could replicate our findings using more balanced samples and employ multi-group SEMs to examine differences not only between middle-aged and senior workers but also in comparison to younger employees, as well as across various socio-demographic characteristics. Future studies could adopt an intersectional perspective to examine how age intersects with other social categories, shaping distinct perceptions of inclusion among various socio-demographic groups (Carreri et al. 2024).

4.3. Practical Implications

From a practical perspective, considering the crucial role of RESE-NE in strengthening employee resilience under interpersonal strain, organizations should consider implementing targeted training interventions focused on emotion regulation, stress management, and cognitive behavioral techniques (Sommovigo et al. 2023b). These initiatives could be enriched with modules on positive cognitive restructuring, self-compassion, and present-moment awareness, equipping employees to positively reframe the social dynamics underpinning inclusive workplaces (Andrieu et al. 2023; Santarpia et al. 2024b). Moreover, skill-building workshops that allow employees to practice emotion regulation techniques in supportive, controlled settings can be highly effective. Such workshops could be complemented by positive reinforcement strategies, such as offering constructive feedback and encouragement to individuals who successfully manage negative emotions. Highlighting peers who demonstrate effective emotion management in diverse scenarios as role models can further inspire and instill confidence (Bandura 2023). This multifaceted approach not only enhances employees’ self-efficacy in handling challenging emotions but also provides actionable strategies that can be adopted and emulated across the organization. To mitigate interpersonal strain, organizations might consider implementing coping effectiveness training (Chesney et al. 2003), designed to enhance employees’ ability to navigate emotionally charged interpersonal situations with greater efficacy. These programs could integrate cognitive behavioral techniques, relaxation methods, and problem-solving exercises, complemented by experiential learning activities such as role-playing scenarios. Such interventions could bolster employees’ self-efficacy in managing the emotional and social demands of workplace interactions, thereby reducing their vulnerability to interpersonal strain.

Furthermore, our findings offer valuable insights for age diversity management interventions, highlighting employees’ shared and unique needs across various age groups. Precisely, given that perceptions of inclusive colleagues transmit the benefits of RESE-NE in terms of lower levels of interpersonal strain regardless of age, organizations could implement comprehensive training programs encompassing antiharassment, discrimination, unconscious bias, and specific D&I topics (e.g., microaggressions) to empower colleagues at actively fostering inclusion (Santarpia et al. 2024b). For instance, intergenerational training sessions aimed at fostering integration among age groups could be complemented with thematic seminars and workshops focused on raising awareness of unconscious biases related to age and fostering an appreciation for the strengths inherent in diverse age cohorts. Organizations may also consider establishing intergenerational teams to capitalize on the strengths of different age groups and foster dialogue across generations through informal team-building activities. Moreover, regular meeting sessions where individuals are encouraged to share experiences of challenging interpersonal work situations can provide a platform for identifying shared solutions and nurturing an inclusive atmosphere.

Finally, recognizing the pivotal role of inclusive top management in elucidating how RESE-NE can protect middle-aged employees from interpersonal strain, as this age group can benefit from the inclusive behaviors of senior managers. These initiatives might involve implementing effective communication channels (e.g., newsletters, blogs, podcasts, and internal informational events) to regularly inform employees about D&I goals, ongoing changes, and organizational progress. Additionally, organizational development strategies, such as mentorship programs and talent development initiatives, could be leveraged to further promote inclusion among middle-aged employees. Managers might consider establishing diversity councils and sponsorship programs to facilitate discussions on diversity issues and solicit feedback through working groups to assess the effectiveness of implemented actions. This approach can help reinforce inclusive perceptions of top management across all age cohorts.

5. Conclusions

This study advances the diversity and inclusion literature by being the first to show that RESE-NE enhances perceptions of the social drivers of inclusive workplaces, enabling employees to view key social actors—colleagues, supervisors, and top management—as more inclusive. The results show that employees with high RESE-NE are better equipped to interpret social cues positively, leading to a more favorable perception of their work environment. Notably, our findings illuminate that not all social drivers are equally impactful; rather, their relevance is contingent upon the employee’s age group. Across diverse age cohorts, inclusive colleagues consistently mediate the protective effects of RESE-NE, emphasizing the pivotal role of peer relationships in translating emotional regulation skills into protective outcomes. The data suggest that social interactions among colleagues provide the most immediate, emotionally resonant, and contextually relevant opportunities for employees to experience a sense of inclusion, thereby alleviating interpersonal strain. Moreover, our multi-group analyses reveal distinct patterns related to age. For middle-aged employees, inclusive top management also mediated the relationship between RESE-NE and interpersonal strain, indicating the strategic relevance of leadership inclusivity during mid-career stages. This underscores the importance of hierarchical support during mid-career stages when employees often prioritize strategic guidance and recognition from leadership. In contrast, for senior employees, only inclusive colleagues exhibited a mediating effect, reflecting a shift towards socioemotional goals and a heightened dependence on horizontal relationships rather than hierarchical structures in the quest for psychological well-being. These age-specific insights hold significant implications for organizational policy and practice. Rather than deploying uniform, top-down inclusion strategies, organizations should develop age-sensitive initiatives that align with employees’ shifting psychological and career needs. For middle-aged employees, targeted efforts to enhance leadership inclusivity—such as transparent communication, recognition, and fairness—may be most effective. For senior employees, initiatives that promote peer belonging and collegial support networks may yield greater benefits. Additionally, our findings advocate for the integration of emotional regulation training—particularly RESE-NE—into organizational well-being and inclusion programs, thereby equipping employees with the internal tools necessary to constructively interpret and navigate workplace social dynamics. Moving beyond one-size-fits-all, top-down approaches, organizations that adapt inclusivity initiatives to the unique needs of various age groups can better support employee well-being, fostering a healthier workforce.