Academic Retirement: Changing Paradigms from ‘When’ to ‘How’

With the abolition of mandatory retirement in the U.S. in 1986, so too came the end of the “all-or-nothing” retirement paradigm. Exiting a career is now a complicated process shaped by numerous intersecting determinants, including personal preferences, social circumstances, institutional regulations, and government policies.¹ The retirement process may be incredibly challenging for individuals in higher education because they hold deeper psychosocial connections to their work than other populations.^1–3

The average retirement age for senior academics is increasing, which may be explained by several factors.^1,3 One of the most common reasons for faculty members to postpone retirement is their passion for their work.^3,4 Individuals in higher education may wish to remain intellectually stimulated by teaching and contributing actively to their discipline. They may also seek to maintain a vast network of relationships with organizations, colleagues, and students, from which they derive joy and fulfillment.^1,3 Mentoring students and seeing them thrive confers a particularly strong sense of contribution and usefulness.^5,6 Another potential reason that senior academics prolong their career is the desire to maintain their socioeconomic status and its associated privileges.^1,3 Without the physical and cognitive ailments that hindered their predecessors, individuals in higher education may choose to continue working indefinitely.⁷ It is not surprising that many senior academics consider their work and professional affiliations to be integral components of their identity.^3,8 Departing from higher education may constitute a threat to their self-worth and self-esteem, imposing the challenge of finding new interests to give life structure, meaning, and purpose.^1,3 Aging also carries a risk of being marginalized by the academic community in forms such as reduced influence, competitiveness for resources, and opportunities for collaboration.⁹ Thus, academics may avoid broaching the topic of retirement until absolutely necessary. Considering the immense amount of effort and dedication needed to arrive at their station, retirement is usually not at the top of any faculty member’s priority list.^2,10 -Hence; some individuals may delay their career exit simply because they have not yet planned for it.¹¹

Compared to senior academics in other disciplines, academic ophthalmologists report similar reasons for postponing retirement. A cross-sectional survey of 116 ophthalmology department chairs found that the most common motivators of work continuation were the desires to remain actively engaged (37%), receive income, insurance, or benefits (20%), and maintain their current lifestyles (17%).² Less prevalent reasons for delaying retirement included love for their work, lack of contemplation, and excessive leisure time. The most frequent concern around retirement was financial uncertainty (40%). Chairs predominantly expected to retire due to aging or health concerns (40%), fatigue or burnout (20%), and family priorities (13%). Most faculty anticipated retiring at 70 years or later, with only 9% looking forward to retirement. Interestingly, only 50% had seriously contemplated post-career plans.² While more than half of the ophthalmology departments provided faculty with retirement training, 60% of chairs believed this preparation was insufficient. This study was the first and only investigation of academic ophthalmologists’ perceptions and attitudes toward retirement.

There are several perceived disadvantages to having older faculty remain in the workforce. Some believe these individuals to be past their prime, having lost the productivity that warrants the high salary and first-rate benefits of their station.^9,12 Postponed retirement may also incur opportunity costs as fewer resources are available to fund novel research ventures, respond to changing student interests, and recruit and promote young faculty. These consequences may have negative ramifications on scholarly innovation, institutional diversity, and student mentorship.^3,9,12

Although an argument may be made to mandate earlier retirement for senior academics, their continued engagement in the workforce confers multiple benefits. From an individual perspective, productive work positively impacted physical, cognitive, and mental health.^13,14 These health benefits may be especially relevant to senior academics, who derive a strong sense of fulfillment from their professional roles and relationships. The satisfaction and financial capital that faculty members gain from their work are critical to their quality of life.³ From a societal perspective, individuals in higher education who choose to postpone retirement can continue using their advanced skills and expertise to make a difference on a local and international scale. Senior academics also strengthen the national economy by producing goods and resources, paying public taxes, and reducing the burden on social services.^9,15 These economic contributions will become increasingly important as the baby boom generation ages.¹⁶

A solution that leverages the benefits and minimizes the costs of a later career exit is flexible retirement. Creative models of retirement focus on modifying the employment regime so that individuals work in reduced or different capacities but do not stop working entirely.^3,15 These approaches facilitate a gradual transition into later life while sustaining meaningful engagement in professional activities. Examples of retirement models that have been implemented at academic institutions include flexible work, phased retirement, and bridge employment. Flexible work encompasses a variety of arrangements through which the individual can continue working at a reduced capacity, including part-time and project-based roles.¹⁷ Phased retirement is similar to flexible work but has formal stipulations on workload and timing (i.e., individuals are asked to work at increasingly reduced capacities for a predetermined number of years before ultimately stopping). The third option, bridge employment, is unique in that the individuals are not tied to their previous employers and may pursue other lines of work.¹⁵ Academic roles that may be included in flexible retirement include instructing courses, supervising graduate students, organizing professional development for younger faculty, serving on committees, and consulting on research- or systems-based problems.¹⁵ Retirees may be selective when choosing professional responsibilities to curtail the aspects of academia that they dislike.¹⁸

For new retirement models to be effective, they must be supported by institutional regulations and communicated to academics early in their careers. Informal, ‘ad hoc’ arrangements between faculty and management are subjective and susceptible to bias. Formal policies and eligibility criteria must be clearly defined to promote equitable employee treatment and institution-level operationalization. Furthermore, retirement models should be advertised to academics promptly and transparently to permit the development of tailored, comprehensive plans. Retirement programs may be complemented by additional supports such as retirement counselors, retiree centers, and emeriti colleges.¹⁵ Retirement education should guide financial arrangements, insurance options, and psychosocial support. Retiree organizations may provide additional resources, such as funding for research and opportunities to connect with peers and institutions.

The increasing number of senior academics who choose to postpone their career exit highlights the need to restructure models of retirement creatively. Key reasons that academic ophthalmologists delay their career exit, including a desire to remain active and reluctance to lose financial and social capital, may be addressed with flexible and gradual approaches to retirement. Helping individuals in higher education transition into a productive and meaningful post-retirement life is universally beneficial to retirees, institutions, and society. The concept of retirement should be reframed from a static question of ‘when’ to a dynamic process of ‘how.’

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was funded by Hyderabad Eye Research Foundation, India.