Retirement at 65? It’s a thing of the past, and here is why


The three-stage life no longer exists as the retirement age keeps increasing. Experts argue that you’re going to be working well into your 70s. Are you prepared?

Lynda Gratton has spent her career looking at the future of work. The renowned academic is bringing her latest findings to AHRI’s National Convention in August 2016. Gratton, Professor of Management Practice at London Business School, has spent the last three years modelling work, life and retirement in an age of longevity. The 100-Year Life co-authored with Professor of Economics Andrew Scott is the result.

Those 55- to 65-year-old staff members within your organisation have mostly followed a typical and well trodden three-stage life path involving education, career and retirement, she says. It is a pattern with which the corporate world has become familiar and comfortable, a reliable and mostly predictable journey around which modern-day HR practices have been built. But this pattern is about to be smashed, says Gratton.

“If you’re likely to live to 100 and want to retire on 50 per cent of your salary, which most people want to do, then you have to work into your late 70s or early 80s. We quickly realised the three-stage life – education, work, retirement – was impossible. Who can work from 21 to 75 non-stop?”

Modelling the future of work on a figure called ‘Jane’, who is currently in her 20s, Gratton posed the questions: What sort of work would Jane be doing? What would it mean for her family relationships? What would it mean for the community she lives in and for her leisure time? And what are the implications for government policy and corporate strategies?

What Gratton and colleagues came up with in response was the ‘six-stage life’.

“When we modelled the scenarios for Jane, some of them had up to six life/career stages,” Gratton says. “Some of those are new. For instance, we expect more people to be freelance at some stage of their career. They will work either on their own or in a small team because technology platforms are being built that will allow people to do so quite easily.

“Notably, she could easily decide to travel during her career or go back into education for a period of time to upskill or re-skill. We think people are going to be much more thoughtful about building portfolios where they do multiple things. People are already doing that, but I don’t think it has emerged as a recognised stage.”

The increase in Jane’s longevity, coupled with the rampant pace of technological advancement, introduces an entirely new set of challenges for HR professionals. From recruitment to retention to retirement, and everything in between, new processes will have to be developed to successfully provide an organisation’s flow of human resources and, indeed, to encourage individuals to manage their own life stages, says Gratton.

Rather than focussing on how much Jane should be paid, or where exactly she will need to be located, Jane and her employers will instead need to think about what it is that will allow her to be more productive, agile, healthy, and what will give her the power to constantly change and re-invent, says Gratton. “How can Jane be offered a true and innately satisfying level of work-life balance, rather than the lip-service that is usually paid to such an idea? How can a career that continues into one’s 80s be made realistic, practical and enjoyable?”

But Gratton is optimistic about the future, especially in the challenges posed for HR. “I think HR management roles will become more fascinating and more creative. Managing the career of Jane will require more skills and a more individualised and tailored way of thinking about current practices and processes.”

 Professor Lynda Gratton is a speaker at AHRI’s National Convention from 3 to 5 August 2016 in Brisbane. To check event details and register, click here.

Subscribe to receive comments
Notify me of
guest

19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Roger
Roger
7 years ago

I have been engaged in the hospitality industry for some 45 years. Now in my 65th year, I am actively involved in the retail liquor industry in an operational role. Used to working throughout my career 6 days a week encompassing long and unsociable hours, passion and commitment were the operating factors. They still are. If one is fit , able, interested and willing to upskill – where is the problem? Work on dear people.

TC
TC
7 years ago

My concern with the requirement to work well into my 70s is about locking the next generation out of the job market, or significantly limiting their opportunities for work experience and professional development. With youth unemployment as high as it is, how can we expect younger generations to thrive? Personally I love my job and cannot imagine not being employed in some form, but why is it that I (who have always worked, contributed, volunteered, paid taxes and am now raising amazing kids) will have to wait until I am 75 to be eligible for a pension? Yet politicians can… Read more »

Murray
Murray
7 years ago

Ageism is discrimination against those who are qualified with experience. I am in my 50’s and experience this already in Australia. The model certainly does need to change. I concur with your article whole-hartedly!!!

Moz
Moz
7 years ago

I am a professional recruiter, mostly for IT, and I am heartily sick of HR & Hiring managers using the “a bit too experienced” response…I fight back with “if you were about to have some serious surgery, which would prefer, a surgeon with lots of experience, or one without much experience”.

Ageism is as nasty and dangerous as racism…..and both are illegal….Hiring managers, and especially HR take note…..

Nancye
Nancye
7 years ago

I think it comes down to a matter of choice. For people who have been employed in physically demanding work they probably breathe a sigh of relief when they reach retirement. On the other hand if there were more opportunities for older workers such as flexible hours, or reduced hours people in the above category may work on .

More on HRM

Retirement at 65? It’s a thing of the past, and here is why


The three-stage life no longer exists as the retirement age keeps increasing. Experts argue that you’re going to be working well into your 70s. Are you prepared?

Lynda Gratton has spent her career looking at the future of work. The renowned academic is bringing her latest findings to AHRI’s National Convention in August 2016. Gratton, Professor of Management Practice at London Business School, has spent the last three years modelling work, life and retirement in an age of longevity. The 100-Year Life co-authored with Professor of Economics Andrew Scott is the result.

Those 55- to 65-year-old staff members within your organisation have mostly followed a typical and well trodden three-stage life path involving education, career and retirement, she says. It is a pattern with which the corporate world has become familiar and comfortable, a reliable and mostly predictable journey around which modern-day HR practices have been built. But this pattern is about to be smashed, says Gratton.

“If you’re likely to live to 100 and want to retire on 50 per cent of your salary, which most people want to do, then you have to work into your late 70s or early 80s. We quickly realised the three-stage life – education, work, retirement – was impossible. Who can work from 21 to 75 non-stop?”

Modelling the future of work on a figure called ‘Jane’, who is currently in her 20s, Gratton posed the questions: What sort of work would Jane be doing? What would it mean for her family relationships? What would it mean for the community she lives in and for her leisure time? And what are the implications for government policy and corporate strategies?

What Gratton and colleagues came up with in response was the ‘six-stage life’.

“When we modelled the scenarios for Jane, some of them had up to six life/career stages,” Gratton says. “Some of those are new. For instance, we expect more people to be freelance at some stage of their career. They will work either on their own or in a small team because technology platforms are being built that will allow people to do so quite easily.

“Notably, she could easily decide to travel during her career or go back into education for a period of time to upskill or re-skill. We think people are going to be much more thoughtful about building portfolios where they do multiple things. People are already doing that, but I don’t think it has emerged as a recognised stage.”

The increase in Jane’s longevity, coupled with the rampant pace of technological advancement, introduces an entirely new set of challenges for HR professionals. From recruitment to retention to retirement, and everything in between, new processes will have to be developed to successfully provide an organisation’s flow of human resources and, indeed, to encourage individuals to manage their own life stages, says Gratton.

Rather than focussing on how much Jane should be paid, or where exactly she will need to be located, Jane and her employers will instead need to think about what it is that will allow her to be more productive, agile, healthy, and what will give her the power to constantly change and re-invent, says Gratton. “How can Jane be offered a true and innately satisfying level of work-life balance, rather than the lip-service that is usually paid to such an idea? How can a career that continues into one’s 80s be made realistic, practical and enjoyable?”

But Gratton is optimistic about the future, especially in the challenges posed for HR. “I think HR management roles will become more fascinating and more creative. Managing the career of Jane will require more skills and a more individualised and tailored way of thinking about current practices and processes.”

 Professor Lynda Gratton is a speaker at AHRI’s National Convention from 3 to 5 August 2016 in Brisbane. To check event details and register, click here.

Subscribe to receive comments
Notify me of
guest

19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Roger
Roger
7 years ago

I have been engaged in the hospitality industry for some 45 years. Now in my 65th year, I am actively involved in the retail liquor industry in an operational role. Used to working throughout my career 6 days a week encompassing long and unsociable hours, passion and commitment were the operating factors. They still are. If one is fit , able, interested and willing to upskill – where is the problem? Work on dear people.

TC
TC
7 years ago

My concern with the requirement to work well into my 70s is about locking the next generation out of the job market, or significantly limiting their opportunities for work experience and professional development. With youth unemployment as high as it is, how can we expect younger generations to thrive? Personally I love my job and cannot imagine not being employed in some form, but why is it that I (who have always worked, contributed, volunteered, paid taxes and am now raising amazing kids) will have to wait until I am 75 to be eligible for a pension? Yet politicians can… Read more »

Murray
Murray
7 years ago

Ageism is discrimination against those who are qualified with experience. I am in my 50’s and experience this already in Australia. The model certainly does need to change. I concur with your article whole-hartedly!!!

Moz
Moz
7 years ago

I am a professional recruiter, mostly for IT, and I am heartily sick of HR & Hiring managers using the “a bit too experienced” response…I fight back with “if you were about to have some serious surgery, which would prefer, a surgeon with lots of experience, or one without much experience”.

Ageism is as nasty and dangerous as racism…..and both are illegal….Hiring managers, and especially HR take note…..

Nancye
Nancye
7 years ago

I think it comes down to a matter of choice. For people who have been employed in physically demanding work they probably breathe a sigh of relief when they reach retirement. On the other hand if there were more opportunities for older workers such as flexible hours, or reduced hours people in the above category may work on .

More on HRM