1. Frank Walsh on September 14, 2005 3:06 PM writes...

I'm generally inclined to agree that point C is the greatest of the challenges listed, and perhaps the greatest of all on this issue. However, I do think that the furious pace of technological advancement and workplace change are also major contributors. Not only are older workers less likely to want to deal with continuous change, they are also likely to find themselves much less welcome (which manifests itself as issue b)

I suppose that as the current crop of "30 and 40 somethings" progresses through the workplace, the turmoil of globalization and the march of technology will be commonplace and as a result, become less of a factor in a decision to stay in the workplace. In fact, one could hope that when/if distributed becomes a true reality it will make it far more attractive for people to remain part of the workforce and still enjoy many of the benefits of retirement.

2. Jim Ware on September 14, 2005 10:49 PM writes...

This is an incredibly important subject. And it's one our Future of Work members expressed significant interest in during our just-concluded Fall Members Roundtable meeting.

Just a couple of very brief comments:

First, it's critical to understand that the whole nature of retirement is changing. Baby boomers are not anywhere near as inclined to want a "traditional" retirement (golf, afternoon bridge parties, and gated communities somewhere south of the Mason-Dixon Line)as their parents did. Today's "retirees" don't want to stop working completely, although they do want part-time work and a great deal more independence, self-control, and flexible working arrangements than they had as corporate wage-slaves. And they ain't going to commute an hour a day each way while paying $5 a gallon for gasoline. That's a major opportunity for innovative working arrangements, with distributed work being the best all-around solution.

Second, there's going to be a whole lot more demand for these "gradual retirees" than most people realize. The demographics shout it out loud and clear: we're going to be facing a massive labor shortage in the United States over the next decade (the economy really is going to start growing again, the baby boomers will step out of full-time work, and there are nowhere near enough 50-somethings to fill the gap).

So employers who want to sustain their growth and viability had better start developing some new, more flexible workforce management practices, or they are going to be in deep doo-doo.

3. Andrew Marritt on September 15, 2005 11:31 AM writes...

Some interesting comments.

I'm inclined to agree with Jim about how retirement is changing and what some peoples' aspirations are post retirement. On the flip side I found myself disagreeing with Frank on many of his points regarding elder employees reduced desire to learn and change. Unfortunately I don't have any data to back this up but my experiences, both in terms of managing change in workplaces and having parents and family friends starting to retire does not correspond to this. In the case of the latter I see my father enrolling in intensive language courses and several of his friends doing 2nd, 3rd degrees and doctorates. Hardly the behaviours of those not wanting to learn.

If there is any generic disinclination to learn new job-related skills it's because many organisations do have structural reasons that force retirement at a certain age or at least encourage it. Why 'invest' in change if the benefit is small and short-term? However, my understanding is that this only really applies very close to retirement age.

On a more generic point rarely do firms ask their employees about their aspirations for retirement (or work) and how it fits into their desired lifestyle. Many managers think in terms of jobs or headcount rather than work to be completed. Here in Europe we do see some regional variances with employers in countries like The Netherlands and the Nordic countries generally offering the most flexibility to employees.

In many other areas of life we are seeing consumers demanding what is often referred to as 'mass personalisation' yet arguably how we treat work offers the least opportunity for personalisation. It would be reasonable to expect that this conflict between what people experience in their lives as consumers compared to their lives as workers to be causing friction.

Offering flexibility to employees to construct their ideal job would encourage greater employment within the workforce (there is a link to be seen here in Europe between flexibility and workforce participation.) However, it is not a solution which is built around older workers but across all the various segments of the employment market.

I am a firm believer that we can view the desire to work vs leisure (or work for firm A compared to firm B) in terms of utility optimisation decisions. Historically many firms have almost presented this trade-off in what economists would describe as a 'corner solution' (you have to reduce one to zero to consumer the other, a bit like buying a house). If firms can present the tradeoff not as an 'either / or' but as the opportunity to create a mix they are likely to find a happier, more engaged workforce across the board.

4. Anita Campbell on September 20, 2005 11:36 PM writes...

Interesting post and comments. I'd add this: as I keep my ear close to the ground, I am seeing somewhat of a senior renaissance in entrepreneurship. Older individuals are starting or acquiring businesses and franchises after they "retire."

One of the solutions that affords "more independence, self-control, and flexible working arrangements" as Jim points out, is that of being an entrepreneur and owning your own business. I've written about it here:

http://www.smallbusinesses.blogspot.com/2005/07/trend-of-fluid-retiree.html